Nagaraj Need Not Be Revisited, but No Quantifiable Data on SC/ST Backwardness Needed for Promotion Reservation: Supreme Court

A three-Judge Bench referred the correctness of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), which upheld Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B), to a Constitution Bench (paras 1-2). The Attorney General argued that Nagaraj wrongly required quantifiable data on backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and wrongly applied the creamy layer concept to them (para 3). Those defending Nagaraj relied on Keshav Mills against revisiting a judgment that had stood the test of time (para 4). Another senior advocate contended that the continued backwardness of SC/ST employees had to be assessed at higher posts (para 5). Arguments were confined to these two points (para 3).

A unanimous Constitution Bench judgment is revisited only for valid and compulsive reasons, as Keshav Mills held (para 6). Nagaraj did not need to refer to Chinnaiah, which dealt with a State law sub-dividing Scheduled Castes, a different problem (para 13). Nagaraj's demand for quantifiable data on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is directly contrary to Indra Sawhney (1), which held that the backwardness test cannot be applied to them (para 14), since they are the most backward of the backward classes (para 15). The creamy layer principle, however, sounds in Articles 14 and 16(1), and courts may exclude the creamy layer without interfering with Parliament's power under Articles 341 and 342 (paras 15-16). That part of Nagaraj, followed for years, stands, and its basic structure tests were approved by nine Judges in I.R. Coelho (para 17). Quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation, relatable to the cadre, must still be collected (para 17). The States decide adequacy of representation post by post, as proportionality to population is not the test under Article 16(4-A) (para 20).