Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors. (2018)

The case of Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors. (2018) brought a crucial issue before the Supreme Court of India regarding the application of the creamy layer principle to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in relation to promotions in government jobs. 

The matter also questioned the requirement for the state to collect quantifiable data proving the backwardness of SCs and STs before granting reservations. The Supreme Court was tasked with examining whether the judgement in M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006), which introduced these requirements, was constitutionally valid or needed reconsideration.

Facts of Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors

The facts of the case primarily revolve around the constitutional validity of the judgement delivered in M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006). In that case, the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), which provided for reservations in promotions for SCs and STs in public employment. 

However, the Court also imposed certain conditions, including the requirement for states to collect quantifiable data to demonstrate the backwardness of these communities and to ensure that reservations in promotions did not exceed the 50% ceiling limit. Additionally, the creamy layer concept was applied to SCs and STs, limiting the scope of reservations for those who had moved beyond backwardness.

The petitioners in Jarnail Singh argued that the Nagaraj judgement had erred in its interpretation of the constitutional provisions and the earlier decision in Indra Sawhney. They contended that the Nagaraj judgement wrongly required states to collect quantifiable data on backwardness and incorrectly applied the creamy layer concept to SCs and STs.

The respondents, on the other hand, defended the Nagaraj decision, arguing that the Court’s decision was consistent with the constitutional amendments that had introduced provisions for reservations in promotions and did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Issues Raised

The main issues raised in the case of Jarnail Singh were:

1. Whether the conclusion in the Nagaraj case that the state has to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of SCs and STs is invalid, as it contradicts the judgement of the nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney?
2. Whether the creamy layer principle should be applied to SCs and STs in relation to promotions, and whether the Nagaraj decision correctly interpreted this principle in the context of reservations for these communities?

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners’ Contentions

The petitioners in Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors case raised several arguments in favour of revisiting the Nagaraj judgement. They argued that the requirement for the state to collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of SCs and STs was contrary to the decision in Indra Sawhney, which had held that SCs and STs were inherently backward and did not require any further proof of their backwardness for the purpose of reservations.

Additionally, the petitioners contended that the creamy layer concept was not applied to SCs and STs in the Indra Sawhney case. They argued that Nagaraj had misinterpreted this judgement by extending the creamy layer concept to these communities. The petitioners also emphasised that once the Presidential List identifies a group as belonging to the SCs or STs, they should be considered backward, and there should be no further need for the state to prove their backwardness.

Furthermore, the petitioners argued that Nagaraj failed to provide a clear test for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public services, which was necessary for determining the need for reservations in promotions.

Respondents’ Contentions

The respondents, including the government, defended the Nagaraj judgement. They argued that the term “backwardness of the class” in Nagaraj referred not to SCs and STs as a whole but to the class of posts in government employment. According to the respondents, backwardness in relation to posts required the state to gather quantifiable data to ensure that reservations in promotions were justified and did not result in over-representation of any particular group.

The respondents also contended that the creamy layer principle was correctly applied to SCs and STs in the Nagaraj judgement. They argued that this principle was consistent with Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, as it sought to ensure that only the genuinely disadvantaged members of these communities benefit from reservations, while those who had moved beyond backwardness (i.e., the creamy layer) were excluded from the benefits of reservations.

Additionally, the respondents argued that the creamy layer principle did not interfere with the Presidential List of SCs and STs. It was only intended to exclude individuals from the creamy layer from receiving the benefits of reservations, and it did not alter the list of communities identified as SCs or STs under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s Analysis in Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors

The Supreme Court, in its judgement, closely examined the correctness of the Nagaraj decision, particularly with regard to the two key issues raised: the requirement for quantifiable data and the application of the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs.

Quantifiable Data Requirement

The Court noted that the Nagaraj decision required states to collect quantifiable data to prove the backwardness of SCs and STs for reservations in promotions. This, the Court held, was directly contrary to the Indra Sawhney judgement, which had already recognised SCs and STs as socially and educationally backward without the need for further proof. In Indra Sawhney, the nine-judge bench had clearly stated that SCs and STs are inherently backward and do not need to prove their backwardness for the purpose of reservations.

The Court therefore held that the requirement in Nagaraj for states to collect quantifiable data on backwardness was unconstitutional and incompatible with the earlier ruling in Indra Sawhney. The Court emphasised that SCs and STs, by their very nature, are considered backward classes under the Constitution, and there was no need for further validation of their status as backward communities.

Creamy Layer Principle

On the issue of the creamy layer, the Court upheld the decision in Nagaraj to apply the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs in relation to promotions. The Court noted that the application of the creamy layer principle is consistent with the Constitution’s principle of equality (Article 14), as it ensures that only the genuinely backward individuals within these communities benefit from reservations, while those who have moved out of backwardness (the creamy layer) are excluded.

The Court also clarified that the application of the creamy layer concept did not interfere with the Presidential List of SCs and STs under Articles 341 and 342. The Court explained that the creamy layer principle is not about altering the list of SCs and STs but about ensuring that only those members of these communities who are still socially and economically backward receive the benefits of reservations.

Judgement in Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors

The Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors concluded that the Nagaraj decision did not need to be referred to a larger bench. It upheld the creamy layer principle for SCs and STs in promotions but struck down the requirement for quantifiable data on backwardness, as it was contrary to Indra Sawhney. 

The Court reaffirmed that SCs and STs are inherently backward and do not need to prove their backwardness for the purpose of reservations. However, the creamy layer principle was deemed essential to ensure that only the genuinely disadvantaged individuals in these communities benefit from reservations.

Conclusion

The case of Jarnail Singh and Ors. vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Ors. (2018) reaffirmed the principles established in Indra Sawhney and M. Nagaraj, particularly with regard to the creamy layer principle and reservations in promotions. While the Court struck down the requirement for quantifiable data on backwardness, it emphasised that reservations should be provided only to those members of SCs and STs who are genuinely backward.