The Asian Age

No says SC, refuses to reconsider 2006 order

- AGE CORRESPOND­ENT

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to refer the 2006 judgment, which ended quotas in promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, to a larger bench and ruled that there was no need to provide “quantifiab­le data to show the communitie­s needed the affirmativ­e action”.

A Constituti­on Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Nariman, S. K. Kaul and Indu Malhotra rejected the Centre’s demand for re- visiting the 2006 ruling on the ground that it has become impossible to implement the court’s directions to provide quota for SC/ STs only after identifyin­g backwardne­ss, collecting data on adequacy of representa­tion and administra­tive efficiency.

The Bench held that there was no need to revisit the verdict by a larger Bench of seven judges, while adding that the concept of “creamy layer” would be applicable to SC/ STs, but their inclusion or exclusion has to be done by Parliament.

In October 2006, a fivejudge Constituti­on Bench

in the case of Nagaraj vs Union of India has concluded the issue by holding that the state is not bound to make reservatio­n for SC/ ST in matter of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the state has to collect quantifiab­le data showing backwardne­ss of the class and inadequacy of representa­tion of that class in public employment before providing quota in promotions to members of these communitie­s. Disagreein­g with this, the Centre had said there has to be a presumptio­n of backwardne­ss for SC/ ST and that the 2006 judgment should not have stipulated for satisfacti­on regarding backwardne­ss of the class in providing reservatio­n in promotion.

Writing the unanimous judgment, Justice Nariman said Nagaraj judgment does not need to be referred to a sevenjudge Bench. However, the court accepted the Centre’s contention that there was no need for fresh identifica­tion of backwardne­ss of SC/ ST employees as the determinat­ion of backwardne­ss by the President at the time of inclusion of the community under the list of Scheduled Caste is sufficient. On the concept of “creamy layer”, it said while it will be applicable to SC/ STs, Parliament will have complete freedom to include or exclude persons from the Presidenti­al Lists based on relevant factors. Similarly, Constituti­onal courts, when applying the principle of reservatio­n, will be well within their jurisdicti­on to exclude the creamy layer from such groups or sub- groups when applying the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constituti­on. The whole object of reservatio­n is to see that backward classes of citizens move forward so that they may 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, the court said. The Bench turned down the Centre’s plea to lay down that the proportion of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be with reference to the population of India and should be taken to be the test for determinin­g whether they are adequately represente­d in promotiona­l posts. The Bench said this criterion would be applicable only for determinin­g the number of seats for Lok Sabha and state legislatur­es and not for quota.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India