Supreme Court’s View on Reservation in Promotions: A Constitutional Dilemma
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The question of reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs has been a long-standing and complex constitutional issue in India. While the Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the right of the state to provide such reservations, it has also imposed conditions that reflect the delicate balance between social justice, merit, and administrative efficiency.
This article explores the Supreme Court’s evolving stance on reservation in promotions, the key legal provisions involved, landmark judgments, and the constitutional dilemma that remains unresolved.
Key Constitutional Provisions
- Article 16(4) – Permits the State to make provisions for reservation in appointments for backward classes not adequately represented in public services.
- Article 16(4A) – Introduced by the 77th Constitutional Amendment (1995), specifically allows reservation in promotions for SCs and STs.
- Article 335 – States that claims of SCs and STs must be considered consistently with the maintenance of administrative efficiency.
- Article 14 – Ensures equality before the law.
Landmark Supreme Court Judgments
1. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
- While upholding reservations, the SC disallowed reservation in promotions, stating it was not permissible under Article 16(4).
- This led to the 77th Amendment allowing promotion-based reservations via Article 16(4A).
2. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)
- The SC upheld Article 16(4A) but added three key conditions before granting reservation in promotions:
- The State must collect quantifiable data showing backwardness.
- Evidence of inadequate representation in public employment.
- It must not affect administrative efficiency under Article 335.
- Emphasized that reservation is not a fundamental right but a policy discretion.
3. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)
- SC struck down the requirement of proving backwardness for SC/STs, partially relaxing Nagaraj’s conditions.
- However, data on inadequate representation and efficiency must still be provided.
4. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2020)
- SC clarified that no individual has a fundamental right to reservation in promotion.
- Held that the state is not obligated to make such provisions unless it chooses to.
- Reinforced that reservation policies are subject to judicial review.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Ghogre & Ors. (2022)
- The SC invalidated promotion policies that lacked proper quantifiable data.
- Reiterated that blanket policies without analysis violate constitutional standards.
The Dilemma
The Supreme Court's rulings reflect a tension between two constitutional goals:
- Affirmative Action: To uplift historically disadvantaged groups through representation in public employment.
- Efficiency and Equality: To prevent overreach and ensure merit-based governance in the administration.
While the Court has upheld the constitutional validity of reservation in promotions, it has made its implementation conditional and data-driven. This has led to frequent litigation, policy paralysis in states, and confusion among employees.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s approach to reservation in promotions embodies a constitutional balancing act—affirming the need for social justice while guarding against unchecked use of quota policies. The consistent demand for quantifiable data, review of impact on efficiency, and periodic policy evaluation shows the Court’s attempt to ensure that reservations serve both equity and effectiveness.
However, in the absence of uniform standards or legislative clarity, the issue continues to be contested. As states navigate this constitutional dilemma, the judiciary remains the final arbiter of where to draw the line between empowerment and excess.
RELATED Blog
0 comments