📌 Key Topics in this Blog
- ⚖️ Supreme Court on Article 16(4): Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
- 📝 Reservations in Appointments
- 📊 Reservations in Promotions
- ⚖️ Supreme Court on Articles 16(4A) & 16(4B): M. Nagraj v. Union of India
- 💠 Reservations for Economically Weaker Sections in appointments under Article 16(6)
- 📜 Constitutional Validity of the 103rd Amendment: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
- 📜 Constitutional Validity of the 77th Amendment: M. Nagraj v. Union of India
⚖️ Equality of Opportunity in Appointments and Promotions
📜 Article 16(1)
- There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens
- in matters of employment or appointment
- to any office under State
🚫 No Discrimination in Employment (Article 16(2))
- No citizen shall be discriminated against in employment or office under State on grounds only of:
- Religion, Race, Caste, Sex
- Descent, Place of birth, Place of residence
🏠 Condition of Residence (Article 16(3))
- Parliament may by law:
- make residence within a State/UT a condition
- for employment or appointment to an office under govt of that State/UT
📝 Reservations in Initial Appointments (Article 16(4))
- This Article does not prevent the State:
- from making a provision for reservation of appointment
- in favour of a backward class of citizens
- which is not adequately represented in services under State
⚖️ Supreme Court on Article 16(4): Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
🔹 Issue 1
Whether clause (4) of Article 16 is an exception to clause (1)?
Decision: Clause (4) of Article 16 is not an exception to clause (1). It is an instance and an illustration of the classification inherent in clause (1).
🔹 Issue 2
Whether Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the concept of reservations in favour of backward classes?
Decision: Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the subject of reservation in favour of backward class of citizens.
🔹 Issue 3
Whether Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the very concept of reservations? Whether clause (1) of Article 16 does not permit any reservations?
Decision: Reservations can also be provided under clause (1) of Article 16. It is not confined to extending of preferences, concessions or exemptions alone.
🔹 Issue 4
What is the meaning of the expression “backward class of citizens” in Article 16(4)?
Answer: A caste can be and quite often is a social class in India. If it is backward socially, it would be a backward class for the purposes of Article 16(4). Among non-Hindus, there are several occupational groups, sects and denominations, which for historical reasons, are socially backward. They too represent backward social collectivities for the purposes of Article 16(4).
🔹 Issue 5
Should ‘creamy layer’ be excluded?
Answer: ‘Creamy layer’ can be and must be excluded.
🔹 Issue 6
To what extent can the reservation be made? Whether the 50% rule enunciated in Balaji a binding rule or only a rule of caution or rule of prudence?
Decision: The reservations contemplated in clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%. While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people.
🔹 Issue 7
Whether clause (4) of Article 16 provides reservation only in the matter of initial appointments or does it provide for reservations in promotions as well?
Decision: Article 16(4) does not permit reservations in matters of promotions.
⚖️ Reservations in Promotions and EWS Quota
📜 Reservations in Promotions
Introduced by the 77th Amendment Act of 1995
Article 16(4A)
- This Article does not prevent the State
- from making a provision for reservation in matters of promotion
- with consequential seniority
- in favour of SCs and STs
- which are not adequately represented in services under State
📌 Reserved Unfilled Vacancies as Separate Class of Vacancies
Introduced by the 81st Amendment Act of 2000
Article 16(4B)
- This Article does not prevent the State
- from considering any reserved unfilled vacancies of a year
- as separate class of vacancies for subsequent years
- Such vacancies are not to be considered
- for determining ceiling of 50% reservation for those subsequent years
⚖️ Supreme Court on Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B)
M. Nagraj v. Union of India (2006)
- The constitutional amendments by which Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) have been inserted flow from Art 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Art 16(4).
- They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy and efficiency.
- They do not obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative exclusion), the sub-classification between OBCs on one hand and SCs and STs on the other hand.
- The State concerned will have to show in each case existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency.
- The impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters 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 in addition to compliance with Article 335.
- Even if the State has compelling reasons, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.
Modifications of directions in M. Nagraj
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)
- The 2006 directions on collecting quantifiable data on the backwardness of SC/STs was contrary to the 1992 judgment by a nine-Judge bench.
- The states were not required to “collect quantifiable data” reflecting the backwardness among these communities.
- SCs and STs were the “most backward or the weakest of the weaker sections of society” and presumed to be backward.
Elaboration of directions in M. Nagraj on “inadequate representation”
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2022)
Issue 1
What is the yardstick by which one would arrive at quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment?
Decision: Determination of inadequate representation of SCs and STs is left to the discretion of State as the determination depends upon myriad factors which this Court cannot envisage…….no yardstick can be laid down by this Court.
Issue 2
What is the unit with respect to which quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation is required to be collected?
Decision: Collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation is relatable to a cadre. Collection of information …. cannot be with reference to the entire service or ‘class’/‘group’ but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought.
Issue 3
Whether proportion of the population of SCs and STs to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining adequacy…?
Decision: …the proportion of SCs and STs to the population of India cannot be the test …. It is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation by taking into account relevant factors.
Issue 4
Should there be a time period for reviewing inadequacy of representation?
Decision: …. data collected to determine inadequacy of representation needs to be reviewed periodically. The period for review should be reasonable and is left to the Government to set out.
💠 Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections of Citizens
Introduced by the 103rd Amendment Act of 2019
Article 16(6)
- This article does not prevent the State
- from making reservation of appointments
- in favour of economically weaker sections of citizens other than classes mentioned in clause (4)
- in addition to existing reservation and subject to a maximum of 10% of posts in each category
Note:
- The Constitution 103rd Amendment Act 2019 enables reservation in public appointments to economically weaker sections of citizens.
⚖️ Constitutional Validity of the 103rd Amendment
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022 SC)
Issue 1
Whether reservation is an instrument for inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes to the mainstream of society and, therefore, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria violates the basic structure of the Constitution of India?
Decision: Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action by the State so as to ensure all-inclusive march towards the goals of an egalitarian society while counteracting inequalities; it is an instrument not only for inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes to the mainstream of society but, also for inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged as to be answering the description of a weaker section. In this background, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution ….
Issue 2
Whether the exclusion of classes covered under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from getting benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections violates the Equality Code and thereby, the basic structure doctrine?
Decision: Exclusion of the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections, being in the nature of balancing the requirements of non-discrimination and compensatory discrimination, does not violate Equality Code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure.
Issue 3
Whether reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent in addition to the existing reservations results in violation of basic structure on account of breaching the ceiling limit of fifty per cent?
Decision: No. Because that ceiling limit [of fifty per cent] itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
📚 Continue Your Constitution of India Preparation
Don’t stop here! Strengthen your knowledge of the Fundamental Rights with our other related blogs:
📘 Stay Ahead with Delhi Law Academy!
Get access to free monthly current affairs, read our insightful blogs,
and explore free study resources prepared by experts at DLA Jaipur. 🚀
❓ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) upheld reservations in appointments under Article 16(4). However, it placed a 50% ceiling on total reservations and clarified that reservation in promotions was not permitted under Article 16(4). This landmark judgment shaped the framework of affirmative action in India.
Initially, Indra Sawhney barred reservations in promotions. However, the 77th Constitutional Amendment introduced Article 16(4A), which explicitly allowed reservations in promotions for SCs and STs. Later, in M. Nagraj v. Union of India (2006), the Court upheld this provision but imposed strict conditions such as proving backwardness, inadequate representation, and efficiency in administration.
Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) were inserted to ensure reservations in promotions and to protect consequential seniority of SC/ST employees. The Supreme Court in M. Nagraj upheld these provisions but required states to collect quantifiable data proving the need for such reservations.
Article 16(6), inserted by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019), introduced reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government jobs. This was the first time that economic criteria alone was used as a basis for reservations, separate from caste-based affirmative action.
Yes ✅. In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 103rd Amendment. The Court ruled that providing 10% reservation to EWS did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, even though it exceeded the 50% reservation ceiling set earlier in Indra Sawhney.
The Supreme Court in M. Nagraj v. Union of India (2006) upheld the 77th Amendment, which allowed reservations in promotions. However, it placed safeguards requiring states to justify such reservations with data on backwardness, under-representation, and administrative efficiency. Thus, while the amendment was valid, its application was made conditional.
Contact us
📍 Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur Branch
6C, Tower 2, Coaching Hub, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur – 302033
📞 Phone:
+91 9911916552
+91 8447285606
✉️ Email:
contactus@delhilawacademy.com