Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878

CASE ANALYSIS: JARNAIL SINGH & ORS VS. LACCHMI

NARAIN GUPTA & ORS

Bhavya Chhabra, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

MANU/SC/1053/2018

Appellant- Jarnail Singh & Ors

Respondent- Lacchmi Narain Gupta & Ors

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I., Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu
Malhotra, JJ.

Citation- MANU/SC/1053/2018

Date of Judgement- 26th September 2018

Counsels:

For Appearing Parties: K.K. Venugopal, AG, Purushaindra Kaurav, Adv. Gen. and ors

For Respondents/Defendant: Respondent-in-Person

Relevant Section: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 16(4)

Prior History / High Court Status: From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.20111 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 13218 of 2009

Overruled/Reversed: M. Nagaraj and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.2

1
MANU/PH/3767/2011
2
MANU/SC/4560/2006
1
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878

FACTS

Different States alongside the Center tested the Court's 2006 Nagaraj judgment3. In the
petitioner's view as well, the Nagraj Judgment had made it unreasonably hard to allow
reservations in advancement for government occupations and public administrations. With this
view, it felt important to break down the conditions set up in the Nagraj case and allude it to a
seven-judge seat.

Article 16 was established by The Constitution to set down accommodating Equality of

opportunity in issue of public work and this arrangement initially didn't contain anything
identified with the booking until the Indra Sawhney case of 1992, in which a few observations
were made beginning with Article 16 (4) which permits the state to make arrangements for
reservation of any regressive class of residents in arrangements or posts yet this didn't matter
to the advancements. This obviously influenced the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled clans
and to proceed with the advancements, Clause 4A was presented saying that nothing in the
referenced article will keep the State from reserving any spot in issue identified with the
advancement. Through the 81st Amendment, Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) were added.

ISSUES

● Regardless of whether M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (Nagaraj) required reconsideration

by a seven-judge bench? Under which the court refused the same and instead the verdict
was reviewed by a five-judge bench. However, it must be noted that the topic and
discussion on reservation is quite imperative in India and is handled cautiously and
conscientiously.

● The second issue that was raised was with regard to the viable validity of the decision
observed and upheld in the Nagraj Judgement about collection of quantifiable data in
order to prove the backwardness and inadequacy of the class while the process of
advancement. Discrepancies, uneasiness and uncertainty was seen in the applicability
of the methodology of collecting quantifiable data showing reasonableness of backward
classes and representation of the same, hence was struck down by many high courts as
well.

3
MANU/SC/4560/2006

2
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878

● The validity and applicability of the creamy layer theory was the third point to debate.
Is this idea to be utilized when earning promotions through reservations for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, when the same layer/group of individuals is prevented
from taking advantage of the benefits? Also, as shall be observed in the topics further,
when the concept was applied in the Nagraj case it was not colliding with Article 341
and 342 and hence this part of the judgement did not seek to be reevaluated.

CONTENTIONS

Contentions of General KK Venugopal

General KK Venugopal, Attorney General battled (appropriately) that the Constitution chose
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes to be "backward", and no further tests could be
compelled to affirm their "backwardness" as researching of such quantifiable data would be
against the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. As a result, it is assumed
that if they are included on the Presidential List under Articles 341 and 342 of the Indian
Constitution, there will be no need to demonstrate the backwardness of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes again. He also battled with the fact that the "creamy layer" potentially
only pertained to the Other Backward Classes, not the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The
Nagaraj decision had incorporated these riders wrongly, Venugopal fought, so the issue ought
to have suggested a greater seat.

The Supreme Court recognized his first point anyway, not the second, declining to insinuate
the Nagaraj judgment to a greater seat of seven adjudicators.

Contentions of The Petitioner

The petitioner presented that Nagaraj (supra) should be evaluated on the ground that Article
16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are not flowing from Article 16(4), yet rather stream from Articles 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution. It was further contended that assertions of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes depend on a perusing of Articles 14, 15, 16, 16(4-A), 16(4-B), and 335
of the Constitution. It was additionally presented that a further sub-characterization inside
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is impermissible, as has been held in Indira Sawhney
(1) (supra) and in E.V. Chinnaiah v. Territory of A.P.4 The contention was concluded by saying

4
MANU/SC/0960/2004
3
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878

that the activity of perusing down a protected change to make it legitimate, led in Nagaraj
(supra), was naturally impermissible.

Contentions of the Respondent

The respondent guarded Nagaraj (supra) by expressing that when Nagaraj (supra) talks about
backwardness of the "class", what is alluded to isn't Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
by any means, yet the class of posts. Subsequently, plainly backwardness according to the class
of posts talked about would require quantifiable information, and it is in that setting that the
aforementioned perception is made. It was likewise contended, depending upon Keshav Mills
Co. Ltd. v. Official of Income-Tax, Bombay North,5 ("Keshav Mills"), that a Constitution
Bench judgment which has stood the trial of time, should not be returned to, and if the
boundaries of Keshav Mills (supra) are to be applied, obviously Nagaraj (supra) should not be
revisited. Further it was contended that Nagaraj (supra) must be perceived as a judgment which
has maintained the established amendments adding Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) on the ground
that they don't disregard the essential construction of the Constitution. As indicated by him,
since balance is essential for the fundamental construction, and Nagaraj (supra) has applied the
half cutoff basis, creamy layer, and no uncertain expansion of reservation, as features of the
correspondence guideline to maintain the said constitutional corrections, Nagaraj (supra)
should not to be returned to.

Finally concluding the contention, regardless of whether it be surrendered that creamy layer
can fall inside Articles 341 and 342, yet the Court's ability to uphold fundamental rights as a
component of the essential construction can't be removed. To be sure, Nagaraj (supra) was a
case relating to an established revision and, consequently, Articles 341 and 342 can't hold up
traffic of applying the basic structure test to a constitutional amendment.

RULES

Constitutional basis-

1)The court's decision has guaranteed that it is simultaneous with Article 16(4)(A) which
discusses reservations in advancement for backward classes in the event that they are
underrepresented in the administrations.

5
MANU/SC/0102/1965
4
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878

2)It is additionally simultaneous with Articles 341 and 342 which discusses the arrangements
in regards to the list of SCs and STs which is to be drawn by the President. The state wouldn't
have to legitimize their backwardness independently as was justified by the Nagraj judgment.

3)Other additional articles- Constitution- Article 14, Article 15, Article 15(4), Article 15(5),
Article 46, Article- 141, Article- 330, Article- 332, Article- 335, Article- 338, Article- 341 and
Article- 342

RATIO

First and foremost thing that shall be noticed is that The 5-Judge Constitution Bench
comprising CJ Dipak Misra and Kurian Joseph, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu
Malhotra, JJ., disposed of a batch of petitions holding that the Judgement of M. Nagaraj v.
Union of India shall not be needed to be reviewed by seven-judge bench and instead the verdict
was reviewed by a five-judge bench.

Next, specifically, it was contended that the Court should audit the three controlling conditions
in Nagaraj: Before conceding reservations in advancement to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe in open business, the accompanying should be exhibited by the State:

1. Current backwardness of the SC/ST

2. Lacking portrayal of the SC/ST in the pertinent area

3. The reservations will keep up managerial proficiency

4. Relevance of “creamy layer” for reservations in promotion

These things were reviewed by applying various but also in some cases similar principles
(Right to equality) of the constitution.

The first three points were referred to by answering the second question, i.e., viable need of
collection of quantifiable data as upheld in the decision in the Nagraj Judgement about
collection of quantifiable data in order to prove the backwardness and inadequacy of the class
while the process of advancement. The court in this matter concluded that the coda of Nagraj
Judgement with respect to this matter would go against the 9-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney
v. Union of India, hence, shall be held invalid to this degree as it has been held therein that the
SC/ST are the most backward among backward classes and it is, therefore, presumed that once
5
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878

they are contained in the Presidential List under Articles 341 and 342, there is no question of
showing backwardness all over again.

While the court was proceeding and hearing the issue regarding the judgment in Nagraj Case,
the major controversy revolved around interpretation of articles- 16 (4-A) and (4-B), 335, 341
and 342 of the Constitution.

The Attorney General of India, KK Venugopal, contended on two major issues, on the need
and viability of collection of quantifiable data, and two, the relevance of creamy layer concept,
which had not been applied in the Indira Sawhney case with respect to SC/ST and that this has
been misread/misconstrued in the Nagraj Judgement to apply the concept to SC/ST.

The Supreme Court referred to a variety of precedents, among other things, such as Keshav
Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India6.

However, with respect to the third question, applicability of the creamy layer principle, The
Court clearly laid its trust in the fact that the objective of reservations is to help the backward
classes of citizens move towards matching on an equal platform to the privileged/other/self-
sufficient citizens of the country. The same would be implausible if only the creamy layer
within the backward classes fetch all the opportunities and coveted jobs in the public sector
and sustain themselves while all the others in the same class, continue to stay backward. This
clearly shows that if The Court applied the principle, it does not in any manner tinker with the
Presidential List under Articles 341 or 342. Hence, this part of the judgement did not need to
be revisited and similarly, no need of referring to a seven-judge bench was present.

After understanding the judgement and its ratio, certain things shall be observed. One, the
question of creamy layer was not unambiguously answered. Secondly, the case not only has an
imperative role in understanding a previous notable judgement, but also sets precedent in order
to the future laws that have to be made in regard to the discussed issue. The case provided
clarification regarding the need to collect quantifiable data, and relevance of the same and
secondly, it answered the question of applicability of the ‘creamy layer’ principle in matters of
SC/ST with respect to the precedents as well as upcoming issues/laws. Hence, the judgement
is vital in these aspects setting precedent for the future.

6
(2008) 6 SCC 1
6
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878

ANALYSIS

Being citizens of India, there are certain expectations from the court’s judgement on any
important issue of public policy, such as, the principles of the policy shall be in competence
with the fundamentals of constitution and that such a decision shall give termination to
government paralysis. Alas, none of these were completely fulfilled by the judgement in the
discussed case. The major decision passed by the court was that no quantifiable data is needed
to be collected to showcase the backwardness of public employees belonging to the SC/STs to
provide reservations for them in promotions.

However, this was not the only issue that was being talked about. Application of the creamy
layer principle was the core issue in this case, but the court only set aside the requirement to
collect quantifiable data as it opposed the nine-judge bench of Indira Sawhney. The court did
clarify the application of ‘creamy layer’ principle generally, which might act as a precedent,
but under this case, it was left unresolved. The Nagaraj case, which established a creamy layer
avenue for advances for SC/ST workers, has taken the court almost ten years to resolve a
discrepancy. This brought about huge number of workers being denied their due advancements.
Will the problem of the creamy layer being a non-issue in terms of job promotions for SC/STs
now be considered settled? Not at all. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court is considering
a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Samta Andolan Samiti, which seeks the removal
of the creamy layer among SC/STs in work reservations — a matter previously decided by a
nine-judge Constitution Bench and more recently decided by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
In the present decision, the court refers to an 'admonition' to itself by a Constitution Bench in
the Keshav Mills case in 1965: "It should be the consistent undertaking and worry of this court
to present and keep a component of conviction and coherence in the translation of law in the
country." The court followed its own reprobation more in break to the extent that it concerns
case identified with reservation

The court just eliminated the public authority's duty to gather quantifiable information on
backwardness however contemplated that the creamy layer test would be steady with the
correspondence rule. The test it confronted is of a common sort. It didn't address reservations
in advancements for SC/ST workers, however wrestled with an alternate inquiry: Which
segment or class among the SC/STs is more entitled? The court might have tended to a regularly
overlooked part of the matter — the privilege of the rich layer among the local area to quit
reservations. As of now, a SC/ST competitor doesn't reserve the option to dismiss reservations.
7
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume III Issue II | ISSN: 2582-8878

She is simply needed to state whether she has a place with the SC or the ST class and a reaction
in assertion naturally places her in the line for reservations. It is additionally a culpable offense
to retain one's rank status while looking for government work. A straightforward managerial
choice to permit SC/ST the possibility to contend in the overall class would have assisted
thousands with leaving the space for the less special among them.

In culmination, from my point of view, the judgement did address certain issues in accordance
to the basic principles of the constitution, however, as established before, even after setting a
reliable precedent for further discussion of the applicability of the ‘creamy layer’ concept, the
same was left with uncertainty and a little sense of ambiguity. Moreover, another part
contended during arguments was whether reservations in promotion is relevant and required,
although answered indirectly through the judgement that the concept shall still exist, better
information and reasons would’ve been more helpful.

CONCLUSION

India had an upsetting history of caste-based discrimination. The retrogressive classes, the
Scheduled stations, and Scheduled clans, the untouchables all were abused and were denied
open doors in each field of whether it was work or schooling.

Reservations in advancement was a significant move taken by the judiciary as not every person
was supportive of this reservation and there were doubts regarding the requirements of the
same. It is estimable that our administration shields the interests of the less advantaged classes
and that our Judiciary is sufficiently able to settle on the correct choices in the wake of
confronting a great deal of analysis. Indeed, even the Judiciary isn't flawless yet as seen through
this case, it continued auditing cases and changing laws so individuals of our nation can get
what they each have the right too.