The recent ruling by the Supreme Court asserting the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation confirms the allowance for reservations at the stage of promotion. This legislative act is significant, not just in the context of the state of Karnataka, but the nation as a whole when it comes to addressing representation and equality in public administration.
Historical Context and Background
The seeds of this judgement were sown in the case of Indra Sawhney vs Union of India. It was during this time that it was held by the Supreme Court that reservations as stated under Article 16(4) could only be provided at the entry point of government service, not at the stage of promotion. In an attempt to address this, the Parliament adopted the 77th amendment in 1995, leading to the insertion of clause (4A) into Article 16. This allowed for reservation to be made for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) during promotions.
The Nagaraj Case Controversy
Subsequently, the 77th and 85th amendments to the Constitution and any legislation enacted based on these amendments were challenged in the Supreme Court in the Nagaraj case. The final decision by the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of these amendments with certain conditions. Any state that wished to provide reservation in promotions for SCs/STs needed to gather quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class along with inadequacy of representation, as per compliance with Article 335. The reservation provision should not breach the ceiling-limit of 50%.
The BK Pavitra Case and its Fallout
The Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2002 had previously been declared unconstitutional in the BK Pavitra case. The judgement ruled that prior to the enactment of this law, no exercise for determining ‘inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’, and impact on ‘overall efficiency’ was conducted.
Significance of the New Ruling
This recent Supreme Court ruling has triggered renewed interest due to its broad implications. It challenges the traditional meaning of a ‘meritorious’ candidate by not merely confining it to talent or success, but also considering the role such appointment plays in achieving constitutional objectives. These objectives include uplifting members of SCs and STs, and ensuring administrative diversity.
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Indra Sawhney vs Union of India |
| Amendments | 77th and 85th amendments to the Constitution |
| Key Controversy | Reservation in promotions |
| Constitutional Article | Article 16(4) and Article 335 |
| Expected Impact | Better representation of SCs and STs |
Judicial Opinion on Efficiency and Representation
The judges ruled that administrative efficiency must be defined inclusively, allowing diverse societal segments representation. This is in line with the ideal of governance for the people. The Constitution, they opined, seeks to realise substantive equality, striving for inclusion and recognition of national diversity and plurality. Should efficiency be based on exclusion, governance may become skewed against marginalized groups.
