SC/ST Quota In Job Promotions: Supreme Court Refuses To Refer Case To Larger 7-Judge Bench

The Logical Indian Crew India

September 26th, 2018 / 4:14 PM

SC Job Promotion

Courtesy: The Indian Express | Image Credits: India Today, Hindustan Times

On September 26, the Supreme Court said that its verdict in the 2006 M Nagaraj vs Union of India judgement will not be further referred to a larger seven-judge bench. The SC also ruled that the states will not have to collect data on the backwardness of SC/ST employees for reservation in job promotions in government offices. 

The decision was given by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Indu Malhotra and headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.


The Nagaraj verdict

In the particular judgement, popularly known as the Nagaraj verdict, the court had ruled that “providing reservation in promotion with consequential seniority as being unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure.”

The Nagraj verdict had further stated that if at all the state wanted to introduce reservation in promotion for SC/ST employees, it would have to then furnish data showing backwardness of the class and poor representation of that class in public employment.


Centre had sought reconsideration of this verdict on various grounds

On August 16, the Centre told the Supreme Court that reservation in promotion in government jobs could not be denied to those belonging to the “creamy layer” adding that once backwardness is presumed and benefits are given, it cannot be taken back.

Attorney General KK Venugopal told the bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra that only the President and the Parliament have the power to take away benefits from a certain class of SC/ST. He also said that though few people from the SC/ST community have managed to rise from poverty, they still continue to live with the stigma of caste and backwardness.

As reported by Indian Express, Venugopal told the bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice R F Nariman, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Indu Malhotra, “They have to marry from their own caste. Even a well-off person of SC/ST community cannot marry from a higher caste. The fact that some persons have become affluent does not take away the imprint of caste and backwardness.”

Now, as the requirement for collecting backwardness data stands removed, does this mean the Centre and states are free to proceed with reservations as they see fit?


Also Read: Centre Says Can’t Deny Reservation In Promotion To SC/ST Based On Creamy Layer Concept In Govt Jobs


Contributors

Written by : Shraddha Goled

Edited by : Abhinav Joshi

Share your thoughts..

Related Stories

Disabled Couple Crawl SSP Office

Meerut: Disabled Crawl To SSP Office After Police Refuses To Register Their Case Of Robbery

What Was The Case That Led The Supreme Court To Change The SC/ST Act?

Supreme Court Refuses To Change Judgement On SC/ST Act After Violent Protests

Change Ownership Records After Selling Vehicle Or Pay Compensation In Case Of Accident, Says Supreme Court

Constitutional Bench

SC Sets Up 5-Judge Constitution Bench To Hear On 7 Crucial Cases: Aadhaar, Section 377; Four ‘Rebel’ Judges Excluded

Supreme Court Orders A Speedy Trial For Nithyananda Rape And Cheating Case

Latest on The Logical Indian

Awareness

In A Historic Move, Norway To Stop Its Biofuel Industry From Buying Palm Oils Linked to Deforestation

Get Inspired

Tamil Nadu Honour Killing Survivor And Dalit Rights Activist, Kausalya Remarries In Coimbatore

News

WB: BJP Booth Level Leader Murdered, Party Accuses TMC

News

UK Court Orders Vijay Mallya’s Extradition To India

Awareness

“Didi: The Untold Mamata Banerjee” – A New Biography Tracing The Political Journey Of The Firebrand Leader

News

Chaos In France: Over 1200 Arrests, Widespread Violence & Protests Force President To Break His Silence

x

Stories that deserve attention, delivered to your inbox!

Handpicked, newsworthy stories which deserve the attention of a rational generation.