- JUDGMENT SUMMARY:M.Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others
- DATE OF JUDGMENT:19/10/2006
- JUDGES:Y.K.Sabharwal, K.G.Balakrishnan, S.H.Kapadia, C.K.Thakker, and P.K. Balasubramanyan
SUBJECT:
The judgment revolves around the question of whether reservation for SC/ST in promotion under Article 16which gives equality of opportunity in Public employment is constitutionally valid?
FACTS:
The petitioners in the present case under Article 32 challenged the Constitution Seventy- Seventh Amendment Act, 1995 and Eighty-Fifth Amendment Act, 2001 whichinserted the idea of consequential seniority for reservation in promotion for SC/ST under Article 16(4A)stating that it infringes the basic structure doctrine.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Indian Constitution:
Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
- Article 16(4A): Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State
- Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India
- Article 368:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article
(3) Nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article
ISSUES:
Whether the Constitution Seventy- Seventh Amendment Act, 1995and Eighty-Fifth Amendment Act, 2001 are constitutionally valid?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT:
The petitioners contended that,
- The parliament has exceeded its power under Article 368 by overturning the judgment of the SC in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India wherein the 9 judges bench held that, reservation for OBC must be only 50% and excluded the people falling under creamy layer from opting for reservation.
- Article 14 is a basic structure of the Constitution therefore Article 16 which is an integral part of Article 14 is also a part of the doctrine. By the introduction of reservation in promotion the Parliament has tried to amend the basic structure which is forbidden by law.
- By enacting the impugned legislations, the Parliament has violated the limited amending power of the parliament which is also a part of basic structure doctrine.
The respondents contended that,
- The amending power of Parliament under Article 368 is a “constituent power and not “constituted power” therefore it can use its powers under Article 368 to repair the Constitution as and when necessity arises.
- The ruling in Indra Sawhney was with regard to reservation for OBC category however the amendments deal with SC/ST category.
- Only Articles 14 and 21 form a part of the basic structure doctrine and hence the impugned legislations cannot be subjected to judicial review under Article 13.
- The legislations have been enacted to promote the Directive Principles of State Policy and to promote economic and social justice in the Country hence they cannot be challenged on the touchstone of fundamental rights under Article 13.
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that, the amendments made under Article 16 do not affect the basic structure as it aims only in upbringing of socially and economically backward classes of the society. Further the provision is to be enforced only when there is an inadequacy of representation for those community and not otherwise. The State has to mandatorily show the data which indicates inadequacy of representation by SC/St’s while invoking the power under Article 16(4A). Therefore, the amendments stand constitutional and the petition stands dismissed.
