JARNAIL SINGH & OTHERS versus LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 26-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
663
JARNAIL SINGH & OTHERS
v.
LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & OTHERS
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30621 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, KURIAN JOSEPH, R. F. NARIMAN,
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Arts.16(4-A), 16(4-B), 335, 341 and
342 – Interpretation of – Reservation in promotion – Judgment in
M. Nagaraj case – Correctness of – Referred to five judge
Constitution Bench – Held: Judgment in M. Nagaraj case does not
need to be referred to seven–Judge Bench – However, the conclusion
in M. Nagaraj case that the State has to collect quantifiable data
showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney
(1) case, is held to be invalid to this extent.
Constitution of India – Reservation – Principle of Creamy
Layer – Application to Schedules Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes
(STs) – Held: When a Court applies the creamy layer principle to
SCs and STs, it does not in any manner tinker with the Presidential
List u/Arts. 341 or 342 – Caste or group or sub-group named in the
said List continues exactly as before – It is only those persons within
that group or sub-group, who have come out of untouchability or
backwardness by virtue of belonging to the creamy layer, who are
excluded from the benefit of reservation.
Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 16(1) – Reservation –
Principle of Creamy Layer – Held: Creamy Layer Principle sounds
in Arts. 14 and 16(1), as unequals within the same class are being
treated equally with other members of that class.
Interpretation of Statutes – Harmonious Interpretation – Held:
Arts. 14 and 16 when harmoniously interpreted along with Arts.341
and 342, makes it clear that Parliament has complete freedom to
include or exclude persons from the Presidential Lists based on
relevant factors – Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 16, 341 and
342.
  [2018] 10 S.C.R. 663
   663
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
Constitution of India – Reservation – Object of – Held: 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 a 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.
Answering the referred issue, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though M.Nagaraj is a later judgment, it does
not refer to Chinnaiah case at all. The majority judgment of
Hegde, J. does not refer to the creamy layer principle at all.
Chinnaiah’s judgment in essence held that the Andhra Pradesh
Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000,
which it considered, could not further sub-divide Scheduled Castes
into four categories, as that would be violative of Article 341(2)
of the Constitution of India for the simple reason that it is
Parliament alone that can make any change in the Presidential
List and not the State Legislatures. This is the true ratio of the
judgment. This being the case, as Chinnaiah does not in any
manner deal with any of the aspects on which the constitutional
amendments in M.Nagaraj’s case were upheld, it was not
necessary for M.Nagaraj case to refer to Chinnaiah at all. The
true ratio of the judgment flows from a construction of Article
341. It is true that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes
(Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 was also found to be
violative of Article 14. Chinnaiah case dealt with a completely
different problem, apart from dealing with a State statute and not
a constitutional amendment, as was dealt with in M.Nagaraj case.
[Para 13] [694-F-G; 695-A-B, D]
1.2  Insofar as the State having to show quantifiable data as
far as backwardness of the class is concerned, the reference to
“class” in M.Nagaraj is to the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, and their inadequacy of representation in public
employment. It is clear, therefore, that M.Nagaraj has, in
unmistakable terms, stated that the State has to collect
quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes. This portion of the judgment is directly
contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) case.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
665
Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for himself and three other learned
Judges, had clearly held, “[t]he test or requirement of social and
educational backwardness ca

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.