M Nagaraj vs Union of India

The landmark judgment of M Nagaraj vs Union of India & Ors. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court stirred controversy in India, particularly regarding reservation rights for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST).

M Nagaraj vs Union of India redefined the constitutional validity of Article 16(4), triggering a shift in the concept of reservations from the traditional focus on equality and meritocracy to a perspective emphasising substantive equality in workplace opportunities.

Facts of M Nagaraj vs Union of India

The petitioner filed a complaint and used Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to ask for a specific type of legal order. This order included a statement that a particular part of the Indian Constitution, Article 16(4A), was against the Constitution’s basic principles and should be considered invalid.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in M Nagaraj vs Union of India were:

• Does it hold true that the decisions made in reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling on promotions were implemented retroactively?
• Are equity and equality a part of the fundamental qualities, underlying framework and both of the constitution?
• How much have the disputed constitutional amendments increased the power of the legislature, if at all, to the point where all constitutional restraints have been lifted?

Plaintiff’s Arguments in M Nagaraj vs Union of India

The appellants in M Nagaraj versus Union of India argued that equality is an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure, as emphasised in Article 14. They contend that considering the Constitution without fairness is impossible, especially in the context of public sector employment. Article 16 is highlighted as a specific assurance for employment equity. The concern raised is that if the balance of equality is disrupted in favor of group expectations, it could lead to reverse discrimination.

On the issue of amending power, the argument in M Nagaraj v Union of India is that Parliament cannot expand its amendment jurisdiction to the extent of repealing the Constitution. Any amendment that undermines the basic structure is deemed to fail. A distinction is drawn between quota limitations and permissible reservation restrictions and it is proposed that the definition of equality of opportunity in public employment, as established in cases like Indra Sawhney, should guide the interpretation of Articles 16(1) and 16(4).

The contention is that Articles 14 and 16 should be read in conjunction with Article 335 and the contested revisions violate the ideals of efficiency, merit and public service morale, as well as the foundational principles of good governance. The plaintiff strongly argues that the contested revisions may lead to divisiveness, discord and dissolution.

Defendant’s Arguments

The respondents in. M Nagaraj vs. Union of India argued that the authority of amendment is a ‘constituent’ power, not a ‘constituted power,’ implying that there are no implied restrictions on the Legislature’s authority to amend the Constitution. However, they emphasised that amendments should not violate the Constitution’s core structure. The equality described in Articles 14 and 16 is asserted to be distinct from the fundamental equality in the Constitution.

The respondents in M Nagaraj vs Union of India contended that balancing public and reserved privileges in the interpretation of Article 16 does not relate to the Constitution’s basic features, such as constitutional supremacy, democracy, secularism and separation of powers. They argue that jurisprudence on public services is not a fundamental aspect of the Constitution and the right to consideration for advancement is not a fundamental characteristic.

The respondents further asserted in M Nagaraj versus Union of India that the challenged modifications align with the Indra Sawhney ruling by keeping reservations at the recruiting level. They argue that reservations at higher levels can be justified, taking into account the authority of Article 335, with limitations set by the court to ensure fairness for the general category. Lastly, they contend that Article 16(4B) allows for reservations under Article 16(4) within acceptable limits and can only be nullified if the reserve is excessive. The enabling authority granted by Article 16(4B) is argued to be valid.

Judgment in M Nagaraj vs Union of India

The court, in M Nagaraj v Union of India, clarified that the disputed constitutional amendments introduced Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) while removing them from Article 16(4). It maintained the original format of Article 16(4) without any alterations.

The court in M Nagaraj vs Union of India upheld the principles outlined in Article 335, emphasising the essential aspects of backwardness and inadequacy of participation, allowing governments to provide reservations while considering the overall efficiency of administrative governance. Notably, the disputed amendments exclusively apply to SCs and STs.

The judgment of M Nagaraj vs Union of India further reinforced several constitutional requirements, including the 50 percent reservation limit, the concept of the “creamy layer,” the subclassification of OBCs and SCs/STs as established in the Indra Sawhney case and the concept of a post-based roster with an implicit notion of substitution as decided in the R.K. Sabharwal case. These elements were deemed indispensable for the Article 16 system of equal opportunity to function effectively.

The court in M Nagaraj v. Union of India ruled that, before implementing a reservation provision, a state must demonstrate compelling factors such as backwardness, lack of participation and overall administrative efficacy in each case. The challenged provision was deemed enabling, giving the government discretion to apply or not apply reservations for SC/ST in promotions. However, if the state opts to implement such a provision, it must adhere to Article 335 and provide quantitative evidence of the class’s deprivation and under-representation in the workforce.

While acknowledging the legal foundation for reservation regulations, the court emphasised the need for caution to prevent excess, eliminate the creamy layer and avoid indefinite extension of reservations. The state is required to demonstrate the underdevelopment of the group benefiting from the reservation, the lack of adequate representation in the relevant positions and how the reservation in promotions will enhance administrative effectiveness.

The court in M Nagaraj vs Union of India affirmed the legality of the contested constitutional amendment, asserting that social justice involves the fair distribution of rights and obligations. It emphasised that the convergence of rights, needs and means is the focal point for distribution, categorising these three needs as either “proportional equality” or “formal equality,” where formal equality ensures equal treatment for everyone under the law.

M Nagaraj vs Union of India Case Summary

In M Nagaraj vs Union of India, the plaintiff argued that contested constitutional amendments, focusing on Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), disrupted the fundamental structure of equality. The defendant asserted that amendment powers were broad and not restricted by the Constitution’s basic structure.

The court in M Nagaraj vs Union of India upheld the amendments, clarifying they exclusively applied to SCs and STs, maintaining key principles like the 50% reservation limit and the “creamy layer” concept. It ruled that states, when implementing reservations, must demonstrate compelling factors, emphasising the enabling nature of the provision.

While recognising the legality of the amendments, the court in M Nagaraj vs Union of India urged caution to prevent excess and indefinite extensions of reservations, stressing the need for evidence of under-representation and deprivation. Social justice, the court concluded, involves distributing rights and obligations where rights, needs and means converge, ensuring either “proportional equality” or “formal equality” under the law.