Q. Consider the following statements :

Statement-I : The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration.

Statement-II : Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’.

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I
Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct

Answer: (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect

Notes:

It has frequently been argued that reservation is contrary to efficiency and merit. Even the Supreme Court of India appeared to have agreed with this argument in some of its judgements, holding that Article 335’s mention of the term “efficiency of administration” will limit the scope of Article 16(4)’s provision for reservation in services.
Article 335 of the Constitution of India states that, “The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State”.
Article 335 of the Indian Constitution only mentions about the ‘efficiency of administration’ and does not defines the same.

Mukesh Kumar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2020:
- In this Case, the Supreme Court held that there is no fundamental right to reservation or promotion under Article 16(4) or Article 16(4 A) of the Constitution rather they are enabling provisions for providing reservation, if the circumstances warrant.
  - However, these pronouncements in no way understate the constitutional directive under Article 46 that mandates that the state shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and in particular Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
  - In fact, sensitivity of the welfare state towards the weaker sections over decades resulted in the gradual expansion of canopy of reservation in the form of increasing classifications under Article 16, a set of actions that created a wave of litigation by which resulted in the ever-evolving jurisprudence of affirmative action in public employment.
Indra Sawhney Judgment (1992):
- In the judgment, a nine-judge bench presided by Chief Justice M.H. Kania upheld the constitutionality of the 27% reservation but put a ceiling of 50% unless exceptional circumstances warranting the breach, so that the constitutionally guaranteed right to equality under Article 14 would remain secured.
- The Court dwelled on the interrelationship between Articles 16(1) and 16(4) and declared that Article 16(4) is not an exception to article 16(1), rather an illustration of classification implicit in article 16(1).
  - While Article 16(1) is a fundamental right, Article 16(4) is an enabling provision.
  - Further, the Court directed the exclusion of creamy layer by way of horizontal division of every other backward class into creamy layer and non-creamy layer.
77^th Constitutional Amendment Act:
- The Parliament responded by enacting the 77^th Constitutional Amendment Act which introduced Article 16(4A).
- Later, two more amendments were brought, one to ensure consequential seniority and another to secure carry forward of unfilled vacancies of a year, the former by way of addition to Article 16(4 A) and the latter by way of adding Article 16(4 B).
M Nagaraj Case 2006:
- In this case applying the creamy layer concept in SC/ST reservation in promotions, the SC reversed its earlier stance in the Indra Sawhney case (1992), in which it had excluded the creamy layer concept on SCs/STs (that was applicable on OBCs).
- The SC had upheld the Constitutional amendments by which Articles 16 (4A) and 16 (4B) were inserted, saying they flow from Article 16 (4) and do not alter its structure.
- It also laid down three conditions for promotion of SCs and STs in public employment.
  - The SC and ST community should be socially and educationally backward.
  - The SC and ST communities are not adequately represented in Public employment.
  - Such a reservation policy shall not affect the overall efficiency in the administration.
- The court held that the government cannot introduce a quota in promotion for its SC/ST employees unless it proves that the particular community was backward, inadequately represented and providing reservation in promotion would not affect the overall efficiency of public administration.
  - The opinion of the government should be based on quantifiable data.
Jarnail Singh Case 2018:
- Later in 2018, in the Jarnail Singh case, SC modified the Nagaraj judgement to the extent that State need not produce quantifiable data to prove the “backwardness” of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community in order to provide quota in promotion in public employment.
The Constitution (103^rd Amendment) Act, 2019:
- The 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), other Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes for government jobs and admission in educational institutions is currently under challenge before the Supreme Court which has referred the same to a constitution bench.
- The adjudication awaited in this regard may also turn to be a critical milestone in the jurisprudence of reservation as traditional understanding of backwardness is broadened to specifically include economic backwardness without social backwardness as is traditionally seen.
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs Chief Minister (2021):
- Despite the Indra Sawhney ruling, there have been attempts on the part of many States to breach the rule by way of expanding the reservation coverage.
- The Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act 2018, (Maratha reservation law) came under challenge before the Supreme Court which referred the same to a bench of five judges and one question was whether the 1992 judgment needs a relook.
  - Interestingly, the Supreme Court not only affirmed the Indra Sawhney decision, but also struck down Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(b) of the Act which provided 12% reservation for Marathas in educational institutions and 13% reservation in public employment respectively, citing the breach of ceiling.