Case analysis of

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta

Special leave petition (civil) no. 30621 of 2011

By:-

Aditi Sahu

1st year, BBA.LLB.

School of Law Christ (Deemed to be University)

Email: aditi.sahu@law.christuniversity.in

www.probono-india.in

December 21, 2020

ABSTARCT:
The Jarnail Singh V. Lachhmi Narain Gupta case is also known as the ‘Reservation in Promotion
Case’. It was decided by a constitutional bench comprising of the then Chief Justice of India
Dipak Misra, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice RF Nariman and Justice Indu
Malhotra. It was formed to review the constitutional validity of the judgment given in M.
Nagaraj V. Union of India given in 2006. The bench was supposed to check its validity with
reference to Article 16(4) of the Constitution, which talks about providing reservations in
government jobs to those belonging to the backward communities of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe communities. In the M. Nagaraj case, it was held that to provide reservations,
the state needs to collect quantifiable data regarding the backwardness of the community. It
implied that the states need to prove the backwardness of a community before providing
reservations in promotions. Moreover, the state needed to prove that the reservation would
increase administrative efficiency too. Many states detested this move as it made it harder for
them to provide reservations in promotions. It was also contrary to the judgment given in Indra
Sawhney versus Union of India in 1992. The petitioner believed that a seven judge bench needs
to review the judgment and make necessary changes so that the verdict is constitutionally valid.
However the matter was reviewed by a five judge bench instead. The exclusion of creamy layer
from reservations was also tackled in this judgment. After the petition in 2011, the judgment was
given on 26 September 2018.

KEYWORDS:

Reservation, Article 16(4), Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, M. Nagaraj, creamy layer

INTRODUCTION:
This case is a leave petition (civil) no. 30621

It dealt with the legality of the decision made by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj and Others vs.
Union of India.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

 According to the judgment given in M. Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India, to provide
reservation to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe, the state had to prove that
1. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe were economically, socially and
educationally backward.
2. There exists inadequate representation of those belonging to Scheduled Caste
(SC) and Scheduled Tribes(ST).
3. The reservation will increase administrative efficiency.
 Many states opposed this move as it made it harder for them to grant reservations to the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community
 The petitioner found the judgment contrary to the provisions of Article 16 which talks
about equal opportunity in the matters of public appointment. Article 16(4) states that
“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in
the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State”
 The constitutional validity of these provisions was challenged in the Nagaraj Case. The
verdict delivered by a five judge bench said that the State could provide reservations to
those belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes if they could show quantifiable
data proving backwardness. Moreover, the judgment also mandated the states not to
breach the ceiling limit of 50% while providing reservations.
 This was seen as contrary to the Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India as the need to collect
quantifiable data to show backwardness was notconstitutionally valid.
 The petitioner believed that the judgment given in M. Nagaraj case should be referred to
a seven judge bench. However a division bench decided that the judgment does not need
to be reviewed by a seven judge bench. It was reviewed by a five judge bench instead.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:

1. Whether M. Nagaraj v. Association of India required re examination?

2. If the Nagaraj case needed re examination, can the aspect of collecting quantifiable data
to prove backwardness be considered valid?
3. Whether the creamy layer among the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe be excluded
from the scope of reservations?

ARGUMENTS FROM APPEALANTS SIDE:

Those who have defended Nagaraj have stated that the Nagaraj case refers to backwardness, for
reservations, it means backwardness in terms of job posts and hence is not directly related to the
caste of an individual. It does not pertain to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in that
sense. The need for the states to show quantifiable data for reservations in promotions is hence
justified. They also argued, relying upon Keshav Mills Co. Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Bombay North, that a Constitution Bench judgment which has stood the test of time, ought not to
be revisited, and if the parameters of Keshav Mills are to be applied, it is clear that Nagaraj ought
not to be revisited.Those in favor of inclusion of creamy layer in reservations in promotion argue
that inequality only exists at entry levels. After a certain post or authority at a job, the difference
between those belonging to the creamy layer and non creamy layer vanishes. Hence those
belonging to the creamy layer should not be excluded from the ambit of reservations. Proponents
of this argument believed that the truly backward would still have a chance to flourish.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENTS SIDE:

The learned Attorney General for India, Shri K.K. Venugopal, led the charge for reconsideration
of Nagaraj. According to the Attorney General, the Nagaraj case needs to be reviewed on mainly
two points. Firstly, the M. Nagaraj versus Union of India required quantifiable data collected by
the state to provide reservations. This was contrary to the verdict given in Indra Sawhney versus
Union of India. Moreover there was no need to collect data to prove backwardness as those
belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes are among those communities which are
socially and economically backward. They are already a part of the Presidential List under
articles 341 and 342 of the constitution of India and hence verifying their backwardness would
be redundant and unnecessary. The second point raised by the Attorney General was that the
Nagaraj case judgment has not correctly applied the creamy layer concept. The creamy layer
concept was not introduced in the case of Indra Sawhney versus Union of India.

LEGAL ASPECTS:

The case mainly involves Article 16 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 16 of the Indian Constitution

Article 16 is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens of India. It deals with equality in
terms of public employment. It assured equal opportunity to all employees. Article 16(4) of the
Indian constitution is a sub clause which deals with reservation. The State is allowed to lay down
criteria for providing reservations to those belonging to backward communities if they are not
adequately represented.

VIEWS OF THE COURT:

The judgment given in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India was firstly not reviewed by a seven judge
bench. It was reviewed by a five judge bench instead. Nariman J. observed "the whole object of
reservation is to see that backward classes of citizens move forward so that they march hand in
hand with other citizens of India on an equal basis. This will not be possible if only the creamy
layer within that class bag all the coveted jobs in the public sector and perpetuate themselves,
leaving the rest of the class as backward as they always were." Justice Nariman also pointed out
that Indra Sawhney versus Union of India detested amassing quantifiable data to prove
backwardness. Hence the verdict given in M. Nagaraj would be invalid. As for the inclusion of
the creamy layer, the Court looked through Article 14, 15 and 16 of the constitution. They
believed that exclusion of the creamy layer from reservations in promotions is essential. The
purpose of reservations is to uplift those who have been at the lowest sections of society. Only if
the creamy layer is excluded then can the truly backward be given a chance. This is because
those belonging in the creamy layer are not ‘backward’ in true sense. They are seen at par with
general category. They are socially, educationally and economically advanced and hence
providing them with reservations is futile. It they are provided reservations then it would violate
the principle of equality and it would treat equals unequally. However the Court believed that
frequently exercising its power to review cases would cause confusion and uncertainty in the
minds of the citizens. On the topic of exclusion of the creamy layer in cases reservations in
promotions, there was an agreement among eight of the nine judges.

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT:

On 26th September 2018, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the Reservation in

Promotion case.Firstly, the judgment was reviewed by a five judge bench instead of a seven
judge bench. The bench comprised of the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice Indu
Malhotra, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice RF Nariman and Justice SK Kaul. They held that
collecting quantifiable data to ascertain backwardness, while providing reservations to those
belonging the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, is contrary to the verdict in Indra Sawhney
versus Union of India and hence was found unconstitutional. However the Court also held that
those belonging to the creamy layer within the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not be
allowed to avail the benefits of reservation. Those who are socially, educationally and
economically advanced within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe are considered as the
‘creamy layer’. The Court was successful in excluding the creamy layer from the ambit of
reservations.

CONCLUSION:
India has a controversial history with caste. It has systemically downgraded certain sections of
the societies while providing privileges to another on the basis of birth. With a view to promote
socially and economically backward communities, reservations have a benefit for society. They
uplift those who have been pushed down for generations. They provide them with educational
and economical upliftment and most important, social prestige. The judgment moreover,
excluded those belonging to the creamy layer which is another constructive addition to the
reservation criteria. It helps to uplift those in need and excludes those who are well established.
The move by the Supreme Court is a highly appreciated one.

SUGGESTIONS:

The only problem with the judgment is that it does not mandate states to collect quantifiable data
of those belonging to SC/ST communities. This can be problematic as it frees the State
Governments from taking up responsibility while providing reservations. The Government
would hence have excessive authority while giving reservations without any checks. The court
should have removed the need for collecting quantifiable data. Moreover, the Court reasoned
that the creamy layer test would be consistent with the equality principle. Presently, there is no
way for someone belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe community to opt out of
reservations. The court could have used this opportunity to ponder on this aspect. At present,
aScheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate does not have the right to reject reservations. Those
belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes are mandated by law to provide their
caste information. They can be punished if they do not reveal their caste. They are then provided
reservations even if they do not opt for it. The Supreme Court could have made the decision to
allow Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates to leave reservations.

REFERENCES:

1. Paridhi Goel, ‘Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta- A case study( ipleaders, 24 July
2020),https://blog.ipleaders.in/jarnail-singh-vs-lachhmi-narain-gupta-case-study/
2. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190772988/
3. Supreme Court Observer https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/reservation-in-promotion-
for-scs-and-sts/plain-english-summary-of-judgment-7b542862-0e20-494c-a1a3-
5d07440c7552
4. Lawlex, https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-jarnail-singh-and-ors-vs-lachhmi-
narain-gupta-and-others/23204
5. D. Shyam Babu, ‘The creamy layer of social justice’ ( The Hindu, 4 October 2018),
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-creamy-layer-of-social-justice/
article25115370.ece
6. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190772988/
7. IILS India,  https://www.iilsindia.com/study-material/14751_1603000207.docx.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Aditi Sahu is a 1st year BBA LLB (Hons) student in School of Law Christ (Deemed to be
University). She has a keen interest in corporate law and Law of Tort.