Court Cases Related to Reservation in India
Indian Judiciary has pronounced some Judgments upholding reservations and some judgments for fine tuning its implementations. Lot of judgments regarding reservations have been modified subsequently by Indian parliament through constitutional amendments. Some judgments of Indian judiciary has been flouted by state and central Governments. Given below are the major judgments given by Indian courts and its implementation status:
|1951||Court pronounced that caste based reservations as per Communal Award violates Article 15(1).
(State of Madras Vs. Smt. Champakam Dorairanjan AIR 1951 SC 226)
|1st constitutional amendment (Art. 15 (4)) introduced to make judgement invalid.|
|1963||Court put 50% cap on reservations in
M R Balaji v Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
|Almost all states except Tamil Nadu (69%, Under 9th schedule) and Rajasthan (68% quota including 14% for forward castes, post gujjar violence 2008) has not exceeded 50% limit. Tamil Nadu exceeded limit in 1980. Andhra Pradesh tried to exceed limit in 2005 which was again stalled by high court.|
|1990||Syndicate Bank SC&ST Employee Association through its General Secretary Sh K S Badalia & Others Versus Union of India & Others:
The Apex court of the country held that reservation is applicable and available in selection method promotions of Group-A/class-1 officers up to highest level and the Govt of India have committed mistake in not giving reservation to SC&ST officers w.e.f. o1st January, 1978.
|1992||Supreme court in Indira Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India. AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3)SCC 217 upheld Implementation of separate reservation for other backward classes in central government jobs.||Judgement implemented|
|Ordered to exclude Creamy layer of other backward classes from enjoying reservation facilities.||All states except Tamil Nadu implemented. Recent Reservation bill for providing reservations to other backward classes in educational institutions also has not excluded Creamy layer in some states. (Still under the consideration of Standing committee).|
|Ordered to restrict reservations within 50% limit.||All states except Tamil Nadu followed.|
|Declared separate reservations for economically poor among forward castes as invalid.||Judgement implemented|
|In General Manager, S. Rly. v. Rangachari AIR 1962 SC 36, State of Punjab v. Hiralal 1970(3) SCC 567, Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 246 it was held that Reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16(4)
included promotions. This was overruled in Indira Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India. AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and held that Reservations cannot be applied in promotions. Union of India Vs Varpal Singh AIR 1996 SC 448, Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1189, Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1999 SC 3471, M.G. Badappanavar Vs State of Karnataka 2001 (2) SCC 666.
|Ashok Kumar Gupta: Vidyasagar Gupta Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. 1997 (5) SCC 201
77th Constitution amendment (Art 16(4 A) & (16 4B) introduced to make judgement as invalid. M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71 held the amendments constitutional. 1. Art. 16(4)(A) and 16(4)(B) flow from Art. 16(4). Those constitutional amendments do not alter structure of Art. 16(4). 2. Backwardness and inadequacy of representation are the controlling/compelling reasons for the state to provide reservations keeping in mind the overall efficiencies of state administration. 3. Government has to apply cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roaster in order to ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service. Roaster has to be post specific with inbuilt concept of replacement and not vacancy based. 4. If any authority thinks that for ensuring adequate representation of backward class or category, it is necessary to provide for direct recruitment therein, it shall be open to do so. 5. Backlog vacancies to be treated as a distinct group and are excluded from the ceiling limit of 50%. 6. If a member from reserved category gets selected in general category, his selection will not be counted against the quota limit provided to his class and reserved category candidates are entitled to compete for the general category post. 7. The reserved candidates are entitled to compete with the general candidates for promotion to the general post in their own right. On their selection, they are to be adjusted in the general post as per the roster and the reserved candidates should be adjusted in the points earmarked in the roster to the reserved candidates. 8. Each post gets marked for the particular category of candidate to be appointed against it and any subsequent vacancy has to be filled by that category alone (replacement theory). R K Sabharwal Vs St of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745. The operation of a roster, for filling the cadre-strength, by itself ensures that the reservation remains within the 50% limit.
|In Union of India Vs Varpal Singh AIR 1996 SC 448 and
Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1189 it was held that a roster point promotees getting the benefit of accelerated promotion would not get consequential seniority and the seniority between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in promoted category shall be governed by their panel position. This was overruled in Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others (1997) 6 SCC 538 it held that the date of continuous officiation has to be taken into account and if so, the roster- point promotees were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation. Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1999 SC 3471 overruled Jagdish Lal M G Badappanvar Vs St of Karnataka 2001(2) SCC 666 : AIR 2001 SC 260 held that roster promotions were meant only for the limited purpose of due representation of backward classes at various levels of service and therefore, such roster promotions did not confer consequential seniority to the roster point promotee.
|By 85th Constitution amended Consequential Seniority was inserted in Art 16 (4)(A) to make the judgement invalid.
M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71 held the amendments constitutional. Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others (1997) 6 SCC 538 it held that the date of continuous officiation has to be taken into account and if so, the roster- point promotees were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation.
|S. Vinodkumar Vs. Union of India 1996 6 SCC 580 held that relaxation of qualifying marks and standard of evaluation in matters of reservation in promotion was not permissible||By the Constitution (82nd) Amendment Act a proviso was inserted at the end of Art 335.
M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71 held the amendments constitutional.
|2010||Suraj Bhan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan. Held that, in view of M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71, if the state wants to frame rules with regard to reservation in promotions and consequential seniority it has to satisfy itself with quantifiable data that is there is backwardness, inadequacy of representation in public employment and overall administrative inefficiency and unless such an exercise was undertaken by the state government the rules in promotions and consequential seniority cannot be introduced.
Reservation in promotion is dependent on the inadequacy of representation of members of SC, ST and backward classes and subject to the condition of ascertaining whether such reservation was at all required. As no exercise was undertaken to acquire quantifiable data regarding in adequacy of representation. The Rajasthan High Court rightly quashed the notifications providing for consequential seniority and promotion to the members of SC and ST communities and the same does not call for any interference. S. Balakrishnan Vs. S. Chandrasekar (28/2/2005) The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Registration Department SC/ST (9/12/2005) The Madras High Court has held that reservation in promotion is available only to SC and ST and not to backward class (OBC) and most backward class (MBC) Sudam Shankar Baviskar Vs. Edu. Off. (Sec), Z.P. Jalgaon 2007 (2) MhLJ 802. Held that consequential seniority is not available to VJNT.
|2010||UOI v/s. S. Kalugasalamoorthy
Held that when a person is selected on the basis of his own seniority, the scope of considering and counting him against reserved quota does not arise.
|1994||Supreme court advised Tamil Nadu to follow 50% limit||Tamil Nadu Reservations put under 9th Schedule of the constitution.
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRS. Vs. State of T.N. 2007 (2) SCC 1 : 2007 AIR(SC) 861 Held, Ninth Schedule law has already been upheld by the court, it would not be open to challenge such law again on the principles declared by this judgment. However, if a law held to be violative of any rights in Part III is subsequently incorporated in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973, such a violation/infraction shall be open to challenge on the ground that it destroys or damages the basic structure as indicated in Article 21 read with Article 14, Article 19 and the principles underlying thereunder. Action taken and the transactions finalized as a result of the impugned Acts shall not be open to challenge.
|2005||In Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. (1993 (1) SCC 645), it was held that right to establish educational institutions can neither be a trade or business nor can it be a profession within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g). This was overruled in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481, P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra 2005 AIR(SC) 3226 Supreme court ruled that reservations cannot be enforced on Private Unaided educational institutions.
|93rd constitutional amendment introduced Art 15(5).
Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India 1. The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 does not violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution so far as it relates to the state maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. Question whether the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 would be constitutionally valid or not so far as "private unaided" educational institutions are concerned, is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. 2."Creamy layer" principle is one of the parameters to identify backward classes. Therefore, principally, the "Creamy layer" principle cannot be applied to STs and SCs, as SCs and STs are separate classes by themselves. 3. Preferably there should be a review after ten years to take note of the change of circumstances. 4. A mere graduation (not technical graduation) or professional deemed to be educationally forward. 5. Principle of exclusion of Creamy layer applicable to OBC's. 6. The Central Government shall examine as to the desirability of fixing a cut off marks in respect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to balance reservation with other societal interests and to maintain standards of excellence. This would ensure quality and merit would not suffer. If any seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categories. 7. So far as determination of backward classes is concerned, a Notification should be issued by the Union of India. This can be done only after exclusion of the creamy layer for which necessary data must be obtained by the Central Government from the State Governments and Union Territories. Such Notification is open to challenge on the ground of wrongful exclusion or inclusion. Norms must be fixed keeping in view the peculiar features in different States and Union Territories. There has to be proper identification of Other Backward Classes (OBCs.). For identifying backward classes, the Commission set up pursuant to the directions of this Court in Indra Sawhney 1 has to work more effectively and not merely decide applications for inclusion or exclusion of castes. 8. The Parliament should fix a deadline by which time free and compulsory education will have reached every child. This must be done within six months, as the right to free and compulsory education is perhaps the most important of all the fundamental rights (Art.21 A). For without education, it becomes extremely difficult to exercise other fundamental rights. 9. If material is shown to the Central Government that the Institution deserves to be included in the Schedule (institutes which are excluded from reservations) of The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (No. 5 of 2007), the Central Government must take an appropriate decision on the basis of materials placed and on examining the concerned issues as to whether Institution deserves to be included in the Schedule of the said act as provided in Sec 4 of the said act. 10. Held that the determination of SEBCs is done not solely based on caste and hence, the identification of SEBCs is not violative of Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
- See Arts 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 335 of the Constitution of India.
- State of Madras Vs. Smt. Champakam Dorairanjan AIR 1951 SC 226
- General Manager, S. Rly v. Rangachari AIR 1962 SC 36
- M R Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
- T. Devadasan v Union AIR 1964 SC 179.
- C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India AIR 1965 SC 507.
- Chamaraja v Mysore AIR 1967 Mys 21
- Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs Company Law Board AIR 1967 SC 295
- P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras AIR 1968 SC 1012
- Triloki Nath Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1969 SC 1
- State of Punjab vs. Hira Lal 1970(3) SCC 567
- State of A.P. Vs U.S.V. Balram AIR 1972 SC 1375
- Kesavanand Bharti v St of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
- State of Kerala Vs N. M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490 : (1976) 2 SCC 310
- Jayasree Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1976 SC 2381
- Minerva Mills Ltd Vs Union (1980) 3 SCC 625 : AIR 1980 SC 1789
- Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487
- Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh Vs Union (1981) 1 SCC 246
- K. C. Vasant Kumar v. Karnataka AIR 1985 SC 1495
- Comptroller & Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash Vs K. S. Jaggannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679
- Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs A. P. State Electricity Board (1991) 3SCC 299
- Indira Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
- Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. and Ors. (1993 (1) SCC 645)
- R K Sabharwal Vs St of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745
- Union of India Vs Varpal Singh AIR 1996 SC 448
- Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1189
- Ashok Kumar Gupta: Vidyasagar Gupta Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. 1997 (5) SCC 201
- Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others (1997) 6 SCC 538
- Chander Pal & Ors Vs State of Haryana (1997) 10 SCC 474
- Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Vs. Faculty Association 1998 AIR(SC) 1767 : 1998 (4) SCC 1
- Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1999 SC 3471
- Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India. AIR 2000 SC 498
- M G Badappanvar Vs St of Karnataka 2001(2) SCC 666 : AIR 2001 SC 260
- T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
- NTR University of Health Science Vijaywada v. G Babu Rajendra Prasad (2003) 5 SCC 350
- Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 697
- Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146
- P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra 2005 AIR(SC) 3226
- I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRS. Vs. State of T.N. 2007 (2) SCC 1 : 2007 AIR(SC) 861
- M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71
- Ashok Kumara Thakur Vs Union of India. 2008
- K. Manorama Vs Union of India.(2010) 10 SCC 323.
- Suraj Bhan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (2011) 1 SCC 467.
- IndianExpress.com :: Court, quota and cream
- "Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. on 16 November, 1992". IndianKanoon.org. Retrieved 22 August 2012.
(4) Reservation being extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action it should be confined to minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50%." ,"Reservation in promotion is constitutionally impermissible as, once the advantaged and disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in one class or group then any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to be brought in the group would be treating equals unequally. It would not be eradicating the effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it.
- Supreme Court Judgement Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India