Glimpses of Supreme Court Judgement in respect of Reservation

Sr.No, Name of the Case Appeal No. & Date Gist

1. M. Nagraj vs. Union of India
2. B.K. Pavitra vs.Union of India
i.e. B.K. Pavitra I
of Order
Writ Petition (Civil) It was mandatory for states to
61 of 2002 furnish ‘quantifiable data on
order dated backwardness of Scheduled
19.10.2006 Castes and Scheduled Tribes’
showing insufficient
representation in the
government jobs in question’
Civil Appeal No. In 2017, a two judge bench of
2368 of 2011 the Supreme Court had
Order dated declared a 2002 legislation
09.02.2017 passed by Karnataka assembly
invalid on the ground that
Karnataka had not collected
quantifiable data on the three
parmeters-
Inadequacy of representation,
Backwardness and
Impact of overall efficiency-
before making reservation in
promotion.
*After the decision in B.K.
Pavitra I on March 22, 2017,
the Karnataka Government set
up the Ratna Prabha
Committee, headed by the
then additional Chief Secretary
to submit a report on the
backwardness and inadequacy
of representation of
Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in the State
Civil Services and the impact
of reservation on overall
administrative efficiency .
*The Committee submitted its
report on May 5, 2017. On the
basis of Ratna Prabha
Committee Report, the state
assembly passed the
Karnataka Extention of
Consequntial Seniority to
Government Servants
 promoted on the Basis of
Reservation Bill, 2017. The Bill
received Presidents’s assent
under Article 200 of the
Constitution

3. Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain SLP (Civil) No. The Hon’ble Apex Court
Gupta 30621 of 2011 directed that the pendencyof
Interim Order this Special Leave Petition
dated 17.05.2018 shall not stand in the way of
Union of Indiataking steps for
the purpose of promotion
from’reserved reserved’ and
‘unreserved to unreserved’
and also in the matter of
promotion on merits.
4. Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain SLP (Civil) No. This is Constitutional Bench
Gupta 30621 of 2011 Judgement.
order dated Issues raised :
26.09.2018 1) Whether M. Nagraj vs.
Union of India required
reconsideration
2) Nagraj verdict had held
that before the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe
candidates can be promoted,
the states had to prove by
uantifiable data” that they
were indeed “backward”.
3) Whether the ‘creamy layer’
among Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes should be
barred from obtaining
promotions through
reservations?
Argument Advanced
Attorney General K.K.
Venugopal argued that the
Constitution determined the
Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes to be
“backward” and no further
tests could be imposed to
verify their “backwardness.”
HE also contended that the
concept of “creamy layer”
applied to theOther Backward
Classes, not to the Scheduled
 Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes.
The Court set aside the
requirement to collect
quantifiable data that was
stipulated by its 2006 verdict
in M. Nagraj vs. Union of India
as it ignored the reasoning of a
nine-judge bench in Indra
Sawhney(1992) that any
discussion on creamy layer has
“no relevance” in the context
of Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes.
5. Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain SLP (Civil) No. Status Quo maintained till
Gupta 30621 of 2011 15.10.2019
order dated
15.04.2019
6. B.K. Pavitra vs.Union of India MANo.1151 of The Supreme Court held that
i.e. B.K. Pavitra II 2018 the state legislation by
In enacting the 2018 Act, took
Civil Appeal No. care to remedy the underlying
2368 of 2011 cause which led to a
order dated declaration of invalidity of the
10.05.2019 2002 Act. Curative legislation
is constitutionally permissible,
and is not an encroachment
on Judicial Power, the bench
held, such a law is valid
because it removes the basis
of Supreme Court’s decision.
The bench held that the Ratna
Prabha Committtee cannot be
held to have acted arbitrarily
in adopting recourse to
sampling methodologies or to
have based its conclusions on
any extraneous or irrelevant
material.
The Supreme Court found
merit in the submission of the
Karnataka Government that
progression in a cadre based
on promotion cannot be
treated as acquisition of
creamy layer status. It
underlined that the Court in
Jarnail rejected the submission
that a member of Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe who
reaches a higher post no
longer has taint of
untouchability or
backwardness. These are
observationswhich will have
resonance in all cases
concerning reservations in
future.