Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
1. The case examined the scope and extent of Art 16(4) and upheld the decision of the Union
Govt to reserve 27% seats in Govt. jobs for the OBC (Other Backward Class) provided that
creamy layer among them are eliminated; Reservation is confined to only initial
appointments and not promotions and total reservation shall not exceed 50%.
2. However, the Court struck down another govt. notification reserving 10% govt. jobs for
economically backward classes among the higher castes. The court held that caste
State to provide 27% reservation to the OBC is valid as cumulatively the reservation amounts
enacting a law or by an executive order. However, the court opined that reservation by an
executive order may not be invalid but since it was being made for the first time in services
under the Union, propriety demands that it should be laid before the Parliament to lay down a
healthy convention.
5. A permanent statutory body be appointed to examine the complaints of over-inclusion and
under-inclusion.
6. The Court also ruled that :
Backward class of citizens in article 16(4) can be identified on the basis
of Caste and not only on economic basis. The word class as used in the Art
16(4) is in sense of a social class and is not antithesis to caste. The term
caste alone cant be the criteria to determine backwardness. There are several
classes among non-Hindus, Christians, Muslims, etc and if they are backward
classification. Thus the court overruled Balaji case ruling and approved
Thomas case. Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the subject of reservation in
favour of backward classes. But, reservation can be made for other classes
personnel, political sufferers or any other class except for backward class.
Backward classes in Art 16(4) are not similar to Socially and
and takes in SC/ST and OBCs including SEBC. Thus certain classes might
not qualify for reservation under Art 15(4) but might qualify for the
16(4) is mainly social. It need not be both social and educational as required
and more backward class. This step will ensure that advanced sections of
backward classes might not take all the benefits of reservation. (Balaji
Overruled).
Backward class of citizen cannot be identified only and exclusively with
the requirement of 50% limit is not related to Total strength of the class in
question in the relevant sphere. (Affirmed Balaji and overruled Thomas case).
The court further held that Art 16(4) speaks of adequate representation and
for the application of this 50% rule a year should be taken as a unit.
Carry forward rule is valid but subject to 50% ceiling. Reservation
direct recruitment or by promotion or by transfer. The court held that once the
advanced classes and disadvantaged classes are made equal and bought into
one class, then conferring any further benefit would amount to treating equals
as unequal and may lead to resentment which can further affect the efficiency
This case involves the State of Kerela which devised a mechanism to circumvent the requirement of
excluding creamy layer as given out in the initial Indira Sawhney case judgement. The state had passd
an Act called The Kerela State Backward Classes (Reservation of appointments or posts in Services)
Act, 1995 which laid down that as there were no socially advanced categories in any backward
classes in the State, everyone was entitled to reservation under Article 16(4). Thus the Act had
become a tool enforcing the vested interests of those belonging to Creamy Layer. The State govt.
never conducted any exercise to identify creamy layer in the State. Therefore, when the matter was
presented before the Apex court, it directed the Kerela High Court to setup a committee under the
chairmanship of retired High court judge to identify the creamy layer in the State.
The supreme Court held that the law was discriminatory and was in defiance of Rule of Law, a basic
structure of the Constitution. The act was pronounced violative of Art 14, 16(1) and 16(4) and
therefore unconstitutional.
..
4 major amendments were made to the Constitution so a s to subvert the ruling of the Mandal
case.
77th Amendment Act,1995: The amendment sought to remove the difficulty created by the
Mandal judgement in which the court had held that reservation could not be allowed in
promotions. The amendment added a new clause 4A to Art. 16 which empowered the
State to provide reservations in promotions in govt. jobs in favour of SC/ST classes which in
the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the Services under state. In Ashok
Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (1997) the court held that Right to promotion is ordinarily a
statutory right and not a fundamental right. But after this amendment, the conjunctive effect
of Art. 16(4A) when read along with Art. 16(1) and 16(4) is to guarantee a right to promotion
as a fundamental right to such SC/ST classes which are not adequately represented in the
50% ceiling on reservation for SC/ST and OBC (combined) in the backlog vacancies which
could not be filled due to non-availability of eligible candidates of these classes in the
previous years. This new clause provided that unfilled vacancies are to be treated as a
separate class and filled in successive years and cannot be considered together with vacancies
of any year in which they are being filled up even if the ceiling of 50% limit (as imposed by
lowering of standard and qualifying marks for reserved categories is contrary to Art 335 and
the spirit of Mandal judgement. Thus, the earlier position was that Art 16(4) was to be read in
light of Art 335 which provided that claims of SC/ST should be taken into consideration,
both, job reservation and promotions, for SC/ST by adding a proviso clause in the Art
335.
85th Amendment, 2001: Amended the clause 4A (inserted by 77amendment) of Art 16 and
substituted for the words in matter of promotion to any class with the words in matters of
promotion with consequential seniority, to any class. It meant that promotion will be given
to SC and ST with retrospective effect from 17 th June 1995. Earlier, the court had ruled in the
Mandal case and other judgements( Ajit singh juneja v. State of Punjab etc.) on promotion the
govt. servants belonging to SC/ST category will not have the benefit of consequential
seniority. The rule of reservation gave accelerated promotion but it did not give accelerated
consequential seniority. Thus the courts in earlier decisions had held that a reasonable
balancing of the rights of unreserved candidates and reserved candidates will be ensured by
following the Catch up Rule. According to it, if a senior general candidate at a particular
level reaches the next level, before the reserved candidate at that next level goes further up
to next higher level, in that case the seniority at that next level has to be modified by placing
such a general candidate above the reserved candidate. However, the effect 85 th amendment is
that when reserved candidates are promoted earlier to general candidates, their seniority in the
new cadre would rank from the date of their joining on promotion and this seniority would
not be wiped out after the promotion of unreserved candidates from their respective dates of
promotion and that the unreserved candidates would remain junior to reserved candidates.
The constitutional validity of the above 4 amendments was contended in the case:
1. The five judge bench unanimously upheld the validity of the Constitutional amendments
observing that the clauses inserted were only of the nature of enabling provisions meaning
that these provisions only enable or authorise the State to act but do not confer any
fundamental right on the citizens. The court also confirmed that clause 4A only applied to SC
and ST. The clause 4A has been carved out of clause 4 of Art 16 therefore clause 4A will be
inadequacy of representation. Thus, if these two reasons exist only then can the enabling
provision come into force. The state can make provision for reservation only if the above two
circumstances exist.
2. The court also held that clause 4B of Article 16 (treating unfilled reserved vacancies as a
separate class which can breach the 50% limit) is an enabling provision. The court also
confirmed the validity of proviso clause inserted in Article 335 in relaxing the qualifying
requirements which are backwardness and inadequate representation keeping in mind the
overall efficiency of State administration. These requirements are retained in the clauses.
4. The court held that Social Justice is one of the branches of Justice and is primarily concerned
with distribution of benefits and burdens. The basis of distribution is the area of conflict
Proportional equality means egalitarian equality and it expects the State to take affirmative
action in favour disadvantaged sections of the society within the framework of democratic
polity. Thus, proportional equality is equality in fact whereas formal equality is equality in
law.
6. Doctrine of reasonable classification is read into the concept of equality under Article 14 by
various court decisions. It gives a discretionary power to legislate in favour of certain class of
people to promote egalitarian equality (by treating those under similar circumstances as a
class). Mere conferment of discretionary power is not bad but its arbitrary exercise is. This is
the theory of guided power. Thus, even if the discretionary power so conferred on the State
is arbitrarily exercised, it would be corrected by the courts. Therefore, the enabling provisions
so incorporated in Article 16 merely confer the discretionary power (and its arbitrary use is
State to identify such new and evolving concepts and also provide mechanism to assimilate
an enabling provision itself. These provisions empower the State to identify and recognize
the compelling interest. If the state has quantifiable data to show backwardness and
inadequacy of representation then the State (keeping in mind limit of Art 335)has a
discretion to provide for reservation. Therefore, to say that Art 16(4A) and (4B) flow from
or have been carved out of Article 16(4) is to necessarily imply that clause 4A and 4B are also
of enabling nature like article 16(4). Thus, as long as the parameters of article 16(4)
provision as controlling factors the courts cannot declare the enabling provisions as invalid.
9. The court also ruled that principle of sub classification as provided in clause 4A of article 16
is valid as it is inspired by the Indiara sawhney judgement in which the court has observed
that in order to avoid lumping of OBC, SC and ST which would make OBC take away all the
vacancies leaving SC and ST high and dry. Therefore, the State is entitled to categorize and
sub classify the SC and ST on one hand and OBC on the other.
10. The court also opined that the catch up rule is not a concept implicit in Art 16(1) to Art
16(4). The concepts of catch up rule or consequential seniority are not constitutional
requirements or limitations. They are judicially evolved concepts to control the extent of
reservation derived from service jurisprudence. They do not form a part of basic structure of
the constitution so as to be beyond the amending power of Parliament. It cannot be said that
..xx.