LexM. NAGARAJ AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
M. NAGARAJ AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
OCTOBER 19, 2006
B [Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, S.H. KAPADIA, C.K.
THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 16(/), (2), (3), (4), (4A) & (48),
C 47, 246, 335 and 368/Amendments Act 77th of 1995, 8/st of 2000 and 85th
of 2001:
Amendments in Constitution inserting Articles /6(4A) and 16(48)-
Reservation in promotion-Extent of-Equality of opportunity in employment-
Altering of basic structure-Held: Principles set out in the Constitution should
D be interpreted by adopting a purposive approach- Secularism, democracy,
reasonableness. social justice are overarching principles providing linking
factor for fundamental rights-Validity of amendments in the Constitution is
judged by app(ving the principle of basic structure-Equality is the essence of
democracy and thus a basic feature of the Constitutio~Fundamental rights
could be abridged but not destroyed-Object and purpose of the particular
E feature and consequences of its denial on the integrity of the Constitution has
to be determined/tested in order lo ascertain whether it forms part of the basic
structure of the Constitutio~onjlicting claim of individual right under Article
16(!) and preferential treatment given to a backward class have to be
balanced-Application of concept of equality in public ef!lployment depend
F upon quantifiable data in each case-Since backward class seeks justice and
general class seeks equity in public employment, reservation has to be used
in a limited sense else it would perpetuate criticism-Exercise of power by the
State may be arbitrary if it fails to identifY and measure backwardness and
inadequacy keeping in view the efficiency of service in terms of Article 335 of
the Constitution-Equality in terms of Article 16(2) is individual specific-
G However, reservation as provided under Articles 16(4), !6(4)(A) is enabling-
State has to ensure that no class prospers at the cost of other class and no
person suffers because of backwardness-Applying the necessary tests/
principles, amendments in question do not alter the structure of Articles 14,
15 and 16 of the Constitution-Equality is not violated by mere conferment of
H
336
-
M. NAGARAJ v. U.O.l.
337
discretionary power but it is violated by arbitrary exercise of the power- A
Enabling provisions are permissible in nature as they are enacted to balance
equality and positive discrimination-Since efficiency is a valuable factor, the
State has to decide about the overall efficiency of the system-If relaxation is
excessive/violates the substantive limits on the width of the power, such
reservation falls and liable to be set aside-Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(48) B
together form part of the same constitutional scheme and they have nexus with
Articles 17 and 46 of the Constitution-Articles 16(4A) and 16(48) are
classification within the principle of equality under Article 16(4) of the
Constitution-Provided the Constitutional requirements in terms of ceiling
limit of inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency
have been taken care of by the State concerned and their existence shown in C
each case-Hence the classification envisaged by Articles /6(4A) and 16(48)
upheld as lhe impugned amendments do not obliterate equality/alter the basic
structure of the Constitution-Desirability of reservation in terms of Reservation
policy could be decided by the State, it could not be inte1fered by Supreme
Court so long as parameters in terms of Article J 6(4)(A) are maintained.
D
Catch up rule-Scope (){-Held: Concept of catch-up rule and
consequential seniority are judicially evolved concepts to control the extent of
reservation-Since catch-up rule is not implicit in Clauses (/) to (4) of
Article 16, it cannot bind the amending power of the Parliament-State
Government has to ascertain the cadre strength as a unit in the operation of E
the roster in order to ascertain adequacy of representation of a class/group
in service-However, the upper ceiling limit of 50% should not be exceeded-
Article 16(4)(A) gives freedom to the State to provide for reservation in the
matter of promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-In the absence
of compelling reasons of backwardness and inadequacy of representation, the
State cannot make reservation-Besides, it should also keep in view overall F
efficiency in terms of Article 335.
Amendments Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.