September 26, 2018:

On Wednesday, Supreme Court ruled that States don’t have to collect quantifiable data on ‘backwardness’ for SC/ST quota in job promotions.

Apex Court refused to refer the pleas against its 2006 judgment in Nagaraj case to a larger seven-judge bench.

SC expounded that to the extent M Nagaraj v/s Union of India directs collection of quantifiable data for providing reservations. It stated the judgment wrong.

However, Court did not say anything on the other two caveats put by Nagraj judgment— collection of data on adequacy of representation of SC/ST in promotional posts and not to disturb administrative efficiency.

The verdict was pronounced by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The bench, also comprising Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice RF Nariman, Justice SK Kaul and Justice Indu Malhotra. The Bench had reserved its verdict on August 30 after hearing various stakeholders including the Centre on the particular matter.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, in its 2006 verdict in the M Nagraj case, had said the states are bound to provide quantifiable data on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), the facts about their inadequate representation in government jobs and the overall administrative efficiency, before providing quota in promotions to members of these communities.

The Centre and various State Governments had also sought reconsideration of this verdict on various grounds. It has been argued that the members of the SC and ST communities are presumed to be backward and considering their stigma of caste, they should be given reservation even in job promotions.

The Centre had alleged that the verdict in the M Nagraj case had put unnecessary conditions in granting Quota Benefits to the SC and ST employees and sought its reconsideration by a larger bench.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had strongly argued in favour of granting quota to SC and ST employees, saying there was a presumption of backwardness in their favour.

He said the SC and ST communities have been facing caste-based discrimination for long and the stigma of caste is attached to them despite the fact that some of them have come up.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who represents those opposing quota in promotions, had told the bench during one of the hearings, that earlier there was presumption of backwardness with regard to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Communities.

He strongly claimed that there should not be QUOTA in promotions for higher services as the presumption of backwardness of SC and ST employees "vanishes" once they join government service.

Dwivedi had also said quota in promotions for SC/ST may be continued for class-IV and class-III services, but should not be allowed for higher services.

Apex Court had questioned the logic behind granting quota in promotions in government jobs to the kith and kin of affluent persons among the SC and ST communities who have been holding high official positions.

Supreme Court has firmly asked as to why the 'creamy layer' principle which was used to exclude the affluent among Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from enjoying the fruits of reservation, cannot be made applicable to deny Quota Benefits in promotion to those affluent among the SC and ST communities.

Source: PTI

Picture Source :