The Supreme Court of India has recently urged the Attorney General to gather and articulate the various concerns of states regarding the execution of a Constitutional Bench verdict from 2006 regarding the M. Nagaraj case. This comes amid a request from the Centre to deliberate whether the ‘creamy layer’ concept should be applied or not to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities when considering reservation in government promotions.
The Concept of Creamy Layer
Derived initially from the 1992 Indra Sawhney landmark judgement, the term ‘creamy layer’ seeks to differentiate between members of the same backward class. It identifies those who are educationally, socially, and economically more advanced than the rest of the members of their community. These individuals tend to avail all the benefits of the reservations meant for their class, leaving fewer opportunities for the truly disadvantaged members.
The Reason for Directing Compilation
The decision to compile the issues was made due to the variety of concerns raised by different states regarding the creamy layer principle’s application to SC/ST communities. Due to the unique nature of these issues, a compilation is required before referring the matter to a seven-judge bench.
Significance of M. Nagaraj Case (2006)
In this case, the Supreme Court reversed its stance on applying the creamy layer concept in SC/ST reservation in promotions. It obsoleted the previous ruling from the Indra Sawhney case, which had excluded the creamy layer concept from SCs/STs. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th constitutional amendments enabling reservation for SC/ST communities in promotions but issued specific directives to state governments.
Directions to The States
The court stated that a State is not obligated to make reservations for the SC/ST in promotions. If a State intends to provide such reservations, it must collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of that class and the inadequacy of their representation in public employment. Additionally, reservation provision must not result in excessiveness or violate the creamy layer principle.
Other Related Judgments
In 2018, the Supreme Court declined to refer the Nagaraj judgment to a higher bench. Still, it later amended its decision stating that states wouldn’t be required to present quantifiable data showcasing the SC/ST communities’ backwardness.
Reservation in Promotions: Not a Fundamental Right
Reiterating its stand from the Nagraj case, the Supreme Court noted in 2020 that reservation in promotions for public posts is not a fundamental right, and a state cannot be coerced to provide a quota if it chooses not to.
The Centre’s Current Demand
The Centre has requested the Court to reassess its stance on the introduction of the ‘creamy layer’ concept in SC/ST promotions. There are concerns that this could deprive the backward classes of reservation benefits. Moreover, there are criticisms regarding the need to prove backwardness repeatedly once these classes have been included in the Presidential List under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. Only Parliament has the power to alter this list.
Constitutional Provisions for Promotion in Reservation
Various articles under the Constitution of India, notably Article 16 (4), 16 (4A), 16(4B) and Article 335, provide provisions for state governments to make reservations in appointments or promotions based on the inadequate representation of backward classes in public service. Certain amendments have also enabled the unfilled SC/ST quota of a particular year to be carried forward to the next year.