M. Nagaraj Case (2006)
– Reservation in Promotion for SCs and STs
Background of the Case
After the Indra Sawhney Case (1992):
- Reservation in promotions was barred for OBCs
- But Parliament enacted a series of amendments to allow reservation in promotions for SCs and STs
These were:
- 77th Amendment Act, 1995 → Inserted Article 16(4A)
- 81st Amendment Act, 2000 → Inserted Article 16(4B) (backlog vacancies)
- 82nd Amendment Act, 2000 → Relaxation in qualifying marks
- 85th Amendment Act, 2001 → Consequential seniority
These amendments were challenged in M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Do these amendments violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution?
- Can reservation in promotion coexist with efficiency of administration?
- What conditions must the State satisfy before granting such reservation?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court delivered a doctrine-settling verdict.
(a) Amendments Held Constitutionally Valid
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of →Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B)
It held that:
- These provisions flow from Article 16(4)
- They do not alter the structure of equality under Article 16
- They are enabling provisions, not mandatory
(b) “Compelling Reasons” Doctrine
The Court laid down that before granting reservation in promotion, the State must demonstrate:
- Backwardness of SCs/STs
- Inadequacy of representation in public employment
- Maintenance of efficiency of administration under Article 335
These are known as the controlling or compelling reasons.
(c) Constitutional Limitations Retained
The Court made it clear that reservation in promotion must still respect:
- 50% ceiling (quantitative limit)
- Creamy layer principle (qualitative exclusion)
- Distinction between OBCs and SCs/STs
- Post-based roster system with replacement (as per R.K. Sabharwal)
Thus, Reservation in promotion is constitutionally permitted, but not automatic.
(d) Article 335 – Efficiency of Administration
The Court emphasised that:
- Social justice measures must balance:
- Representation
- Administrative efficiency
Article 335 acts as a constitutional check.
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Preserved equality as a basic structure
- Prevented blanket reservation in promotion
- Imposed data-based decision-making
- Harmonised social justice with merit and efficiency
Impact of the Judgement
- States were required to → Collect quantifiable data before granting reservation in promotion
- Subsequent cases → Jarnail Singh (2018) diluted the requirement of proving backwardness for SCs/STs, but retained other conditions
Place in Reservation Jurisprudence
| Case | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Indra Sawhney (1992) | Reservation framework |
| M. Nagaraj (2006) | Promotion conditions |
| Jarnail Singh (2018) | Partial modification |
Summary
The M. Nagaraj Case (2006) upheld reservation in promotion for SCs and STs, but made it conditional upon quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation, while respecting the 50% ceiling, creamy layer principle, and efficiency of administration.