DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW.

2022-23

PROJECT-BASICS OF CASE LAW

CASE BRIEF: JARNAIL SINGH Vs. LACCHMI NARAIN
GUPTA AND ORS.

SUBMITTED TO – SUBMITTED BY-

DR. ALKA SINGH SHIVAM SHUKLA

ASSISTANT PROFFESOR B.A. LLB(Hons.)

SUB: ENGLISH ENROLL. NO. -220101141

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL 1ST SEMESTER, SECTION-B

LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW .

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I would like to sincerely thank and express my gratitude towards DR. ANKITA YADAV ,
associate professor (LAW), Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.
Without His able guidance this project would not have been possible.

I also thank the members of the library staff for their cooperation in making the books and
magazines and allowing me to access the internet whenever I required to do so.

I would also like to thank the various researchers and other scholars of the field of law whose
work has proven invaluable for making of this project.

Yours sincerely,

…….. SHIVAM

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TITLE AND CITATION OF THE CASE

2. BENCH STRENGTH
3. AREA OF LAW
4. AUTHOR OF THE JUDGMENT
5. RATIO 6. FACTS OF THE CASE
6. POINT OF LAW INVOLVED
7. DECISION OF THE MAJORITY
8. DISCUSSION OF DECISION
9. BRIEF SUMMATION

*****

3
 TITLE AND CITATION OF THE CASE
Appellants: Jarnail Singh and Ors.

Vs.

Respondent: Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors1.

AIR 2018 SC 4729

BENCH STRENGTH
5 Judges Bench-

1. Justice Dipak Mishra, C.J.I.

2.Justice Kurian Joseph

3.JusticeRohinton Fali Nariman

4. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

5. Justice Indu Malhotra.

AREA OF LAW
The case mainly involves Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. So, this case is related to
constitutional law.

1
Jarnail Singh and Ors.Vs.Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors AIR 2018 SC 4729

4
 AUTHOR OF THE JUDGMENT

Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman is the author of the judgement.

RATIO

A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held the case of Jarnail Singh and
Ors. Vs. Respondent: Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

 In 2006, the judgement of M. Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India 2was given by
the Supreme Court of India, the court held that to provide reservation to the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled tribe, the state had to prove that

1. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe were economically, socially, and
educationally backward.

2. People belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) are
inadequately represented in the society.

3. Efficiency of administration is not affected while providing reservation in

promotion.

 This decision by supreme court in M. Nagaraj case, was opposed by many states as it
made harder for them to grant reservations to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
community.

2
M. Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India, 2006 8 SCC 212.

5
  Article 16 (4) states that “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making
any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward
class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the
services under the State”. The petitioner did not agree to the judgement and reasoned
that article 16 which talks about equal opportunity in the matters of public
appointment was breached because of this judgement.
 M. Nagaraj case which was a five-judge bench case was challenged on the
constitution ground. The verdict delivered by a five-judge bench said that the State

could provide reservations to those belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribes if they could show quantifiable data proving backwardness. This was seen as
contrary to the Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India as the need to collect quantifiable
data to show backwardness was held not constitutionally valid in this case.
 The judgment also made it mandatory for the states that the 50 % ceiling which was
ruled in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India should not be breached while
providing reservations.

The court held that the judgment in Nagaraj did not need to be referred to a seven judge
Bench. It held that the case would be reviewed by the five-judge bench only.

POINT OF LAW INVOLVED

1. The first issue questioned was whether the M. Nagraj Judgement need any
reconsideration by a seven-judge bench.

2. The second issue questioned was whether the aspect of collecting quantifiable data to
prove the backwardness and inadequacy of the class while being promoted is to be
considered valid.

3. The third issue was whether the creamy layer of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled
Tribes (ST) should be excluded from reservations in promotions.

6
 DECISION OF THE MAJORITY

ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS SIDE

The Attorney General of India, KK Venugopal contended that the matter should be decided
by the larger bench. He argued that the M. Nagaraj case of 2006 should be reconsidered.
According to the Attorney General, the Nagaraj case needs to be reviewed on mainly two
points. Firstly, the M. Nagaraj versus Union of India required quantifiable data collected by
the state to provide reservations as this observation was contrary to the verdict given in Indra
Sawhney versus Union of India, which was a nine-judge bench decision. Moreover, he also
said that as it has been held that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are the most
backward among backward classes and they are already included in the Presidential List
Under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. So, he argued that there is no point
of showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes all over again
here as those belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes are among those
communities which are socially and economically backward. The second point the Attorney
general contended that the M. Nagaraj judgement in 2006 did not apply creamy layer concept
correctly. The creamy layer concept was not introduced in the case of Indra Sawhney versus
Union of India and the concept was only applicable to the Other Backward Classes, not to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

ARGUMENTS FROM APPEALLANTS SIDE

Shri Shanti Bhushan who argued from the appellants side stated that M. Nagaraj judgement
need not be revisited. He stated that when Nagaraj speaks about backwardness of the "class",
what is referred to is not Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at all, but the class of posts
not SCs and STs. Hence, he said that it is clear that the quantifiable data is required to make
an observation on backwardness in relation to the class of posts. He also argued that
depending upon the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay
North3, which was Constitution Bench judgment, which has stood the test of time, should not
be revisited, and if the parameters of Keshav Mills case are to apply, it is clear that M.

3
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay North AIR 1965 SC 1636

7
Nagaraj should not be revisited.

Shri Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior advocate, has argued before the court that Nagaraj has
not violated any constitutional provisions and as a judgement it has upheld the constitutional
amendments which are Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B). This judgement is not violating the
basic structure of the Constitution. He also stated that since the 2006 judgement has applied
the 50% cut off criterion, creamy layer, and no indefinite extension of reservation which
clearly means that equality is not violated here which is turn is not violating the basic
structure of the constitution.

JUDGEMENT BY THE 5 JUDGES BENCH

The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the judgment given in M. Nagaraj v. Union of
India will not be reviewed by a seven-judge bench. It will be reviewed by a five-judge bench
instead. Nariman J. observed "the whole object of reservation is to see that backward classes
of citizens move forward so that they march hand in hand with other citizens of India on an
equal basis. This will not be possible if only the creamy layer within that 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." Justice Nariman also said that the verdict given in M.
Nagaraj would be invalid as the court relied on the case of Indra Sawhney. As in the Indra
Sawhney case, the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the test of backwardness
does not apply to SCs and STs as they are presumed to be backward in any sense. Thus, the
requirement of proving backwardness of the SCs and STs was struck down by the Court as it
was in contrast to the Indra Sawhney’s case.

The court agreed that the exclusion of the creamy layer is essential while providing
reservations in promotions. As, the concept of reservations was introduced to uplift the
unequal’s in our society, and this can be truly done when the people who are well off from
that unequal section are excluded from reservation. As they are now socially, educationally,
and economically advanced and now they don’t need the help of reservation to earn the
position in the society.

8
Conclusively, the Nagaraj judgement where it ordered the state to collect quantifiable data
showing “Backwardness” of the SCs and STs was only held invalid in 2018 judgement.

DISCUSSION OF DECISION

The decision by the 5-judge bench was a great decision in my point of view but according to
me the only problem the judgement has that it has not mandated the states to collect
quantifiable data of those belonging to SC/ST communities. Now, the government has
excessive powers while giving reservations without any proper checks and balances. This can
be problematic as it frees the State Governments from taking up responsibility while
providing reservations. The Government would hence have excessive authority while giving
reservations without any checks. The test of creamy layer in my point of view needs to be
more deeply analysed by the court like whether it should be applicable to the reservations in
promotions or also in initial stages of the reservation in jobs.

BRIEF SUMMATION

India is a country which has a very controversial past with caste and caste discrimination. The
backward classes, the Scheduled castes, and Scheduled tribes and other unprivileged section
of the society has been treated very unfairly and denied the opportunities just because they
were born in different caste. Just to make these sections at par with other sections of society
socially, educationally, and financially, the concept of reservations was adopted but the
circumstances did not change by giving them reservation in government jobs and posts as
they still face discrimination and could never achieve a high rank no matter what their merit
was. A reservation in promotion was also a major step taken towards the betterment of these
unprivileged sections of society. The judgement of 2018 also excluded those belonging to the
creamy layer which is another constructive addition to the reservation criteria. It will help to

9
uplift those in those unprivileged sections who need that not those who are well established
and have come out of the clutches of this caste-based discrimination. It helps to uplift those
in need and excludes those who are well established. I can conclude by this that there is still a
long way to have an equal society but the steps by the government and judiciary for the
betterment of the public are very appreciative.

10