{"id":2070,"date":"2024-04-03T10:16:30","date_gmt":"2024-04-03T04:46:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/?p=2070"},"modified":"2024-04-03T10:17:06","modified_gmt":"2024-04-03T04:47:06","slug":"q-consider-the-following-statements-88","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/upsc\/q-consider-the-following-statements-88","title":{"rendered":"Q. Consider the following statements :"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Statement-I<\/strong>&nbsp;: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the&nbsp;<strong>reservation policies<\/strong>&nbsp;made under&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/inshorts\/article-16-of-indian-constitution-upsc\/\">Article 16<\/a>(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Statement-II<\/strong>&nbsp;: Article 335 of the&nbsp;<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/upsc-notes\/constitution-of-india\/\">Constitution<\/a>&nbsp;of India defines<\/strong>&nbsp;the term \u2018efficiency of administration\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"mcq wp-block-list\">\n<li>Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Answer: (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"notes-hd-660cd9c9ebbab\">Notes:<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>It has frequently been argued that&nbsp;<strong>reservation is contrary&nbsp;to efficiency and merit.<\/strong>&nbsp;Even the Supreme Court of India appeared to have agreed with this&nbsp;argument in some of its judgements, holding that&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/inshorts\/article-335-of-indian-constitution-upsc\/\">Article 335<\/a>\u2019s mention of the term&nbsp;<strong>\u201cefficiency of administration\u201d<\/strong>&nbsp;will limit the scope of Article 16(4)\u2019s provision for reservation&nbsp;in services.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Article 335 of the Constitution of India states that, \u201cThe claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the&nbsp;<strong>maintenance of efficiency of administration<\/strong>, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State\u201d.&nbsp;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Article 335 of the Indian Constitution only mentions about the \u2018efficiency of administration\u2019 and does not defines the same.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"important-reservation-related-judgements\">Important Reservation related Judgements<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Mukesh Kumar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand &amp; Ors. 2020:<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In this Case, the Supreme Court held that&nbsp;<strong>there is no fundamental right to reservation or promotion<\/strong>&nbsp;under<strong>&nbsp;Article 16(4) or Article 16(4 A)<\/strong>&nbsp;of the Constitution rather they are enabling provisions for providing reservation, if the circumstances warrant.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>However, these pronouncements in no way<strong>&nbsp;understate the constitutional directive under Article 46<\/strong>&nbsp;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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In fact,&nbsp;<strong>sensitivity of the welfare state towards the weaker sections over decades resulted in the gradual expansion of canopy of reservation<\/strong>&nbsp;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.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><mark>Indra Sawhney Judgment (1992):<\/mark><\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In the judgment,&nbsp;<strong>a nine-judge bench presided by Chief Justice M.H. Kania upheld the constitutionality of the 27% reservation<\/strong>&nbsp;but&nbsp;<strong>put a ceiling of 50%<\/strong>&nbsp;unless exceptional circumstances warranting the breach, so that the constitutionally guaranteed<strong>&nbsp;right to equality under&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/inshorts\/article-14-of-indian-constitution-upsc\/\">Article 14<\/a>&nbsp;would remain secured.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The&nbsp;<strong>Court dwelled on the interrelationship between Articles 16(1) and 16(4)<\/strong>&nbsp;and declared that&nbsp;<strong>Article 16(4) is not an exception to article 16(1)<\/strong>, rather an illustration of&nbsp;<strong>classification implicit in article 16(1).<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>While Article 16(1) is a fundamental right, Article 16(4) is an enabling provision.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Further, the<strong>&nbsp;Court directed the exclusion of creamy layer by way of horizontal division<\/strong>&nbsp;of every other backward class into creamy layer and non-creamy layer.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/important-amendments-in-indian-constitution-for-upsc\/\">77<sup>th<\/sup>&nbsp;Constitutional Amendment Act<\/a>:<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Parliament responded by enacting the&nbsp;<strong>77<sup>th<\/sup>&nbsp;Constitutional Amendment Act<\/strong>&nbsp;which introduced&nbsp;<strong>Article 16(4A).<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Later, two<strong>&nbsp;more amendments were brought<\/strong>, one to ensure consequential seniority and another to secure carry forward of unfilled vacancies of a year, the former by way of addition to&nbsp;<strong>Article 16(4 A) and the latter by way of adding Article 16(4 B).<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>M Nagaraj Case 2006:<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In this case applying the creamy layer concept in SC\/ST reservation in promotions, the<strong>&nbsp;SC reversed its earlier stance in the Indra Sawhney case (1992),<\/strong>&nbsp;in which it had excluded the&nbsp;<strong>creamy layer<\/strong>&nbsp;<strong>concept on SCs\/STs (that was applicable on OBCs)<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The SC had upheld the&nbsp;<strong>Constitutional amendments by which Articles 16 (4A) and 16 (4B) were inserted,<\/strong>&nbsp;saying they flow from Article 16 (4) and do not alter its structure.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It also laid down&nbsp;<strong>three conditions for promotion of SCs and STs in public employment.<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The&nbsp;<strong>SC and ST community should be socially and educationally backward.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The<strong>&nbsp;SC and ST communities are not adequately represented<\/strong>&nbsp;in Public employment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Such a reservation policy&nbsp;<strong>shall not affect the overall efficiency in the administration.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The court held that the&nbsp;<strong>government cannot introduce a quota in promotion for its SC\/ST employees unless<\/strong>&nbsp;it proves that the particular community was backward, inadequately represented and providing reservation in promotion would not affect the overall efficiency of public administration.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The opinion of the government should be based on quantifiable data.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Jarnail Singh Case 2018:<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Later in 2018, in the Jarnail Singh case, SC modified the Nagaraj judgement to the extent that&nbsp;<strong>State need not produce quantifiable data<\/strong>&nbsp;to prove the \u201cbackwardness\u201d of a Scheduled Caste\/Scheduled Tribe community in order to provide quota in promotion in public employment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>The&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/important-amendments-in-indian-constitution-for-upsc\/\">Constitution (103<sup>rd<\/sup>&nbsp;Amendment) Act, 2019<\/a>:<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The&nbsp;<strong>10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)<\/strong>, 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The adjudication awaited in this regard may also&nbsp;<strong>turn to be a critical milestone in the jurisprudence of reservation as traditional understanding of backwardness is broadened<\/strong>&nbsp;to specifically include economic backwardness without social backwardness as is traditionally seen.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs Chief Minister (2021):<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Despite the Indra Sawhney ruling, there have&nbsp;<strong>been attempts on the part of many States to breach the rule<\/strong>&nbsp;by way of expanding the reservation coverage.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The<strong>&nbsp;Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act 2018,<\/strong>&nbsp;(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.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Interestingly, the Supreme Court not only affirmed the Indra Sawhney decision, but also<strong>&nbsp;struck down Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(b) of the Act which provided 12% reservation for Marathas<\/strong>&nbsp;in educational institutions and 13% reservation in public employment respectively, citing the breach of ceiling.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Statement-I&nbsp;: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the&nbsp;reservation policies&nbsp;made under&nbsp;Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration. Statement-II&nbsp;: Article 335 of the&nbsp;Constitution&nbsp;of India defines&nbsp;the term \u2018efficiency of administration\u2019. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,3],"tags":[39],"years":[50],"class_list":["post-2070","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-upsc","category-prelims","tag-indian-polity","years-50"],"acf":[],"taxonomy_info":{"category":[{"value":1,"label":"UPSC"},{"value":3,"label":"Prelims"}],"post_tag":[{"value":39,"label":"Indian Polity"}],"years":[{"value":50,"label":"2023"}]},"featured_image_src_large":false,"author_info":{"display_name":"LotusArise","author_link":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/author\/team-lotusarise"},"comment_info":0,"category_info":[{"term_id":1,"name":"UPSC","slug":"upsc","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":1,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":1269,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":1,"category_count":1269,"category_description":"","cat_name":"UPSC","category_nicename":"upsc","category_parent":0},{"term_id":3,"name":"Prelims","slug":"prelims","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":3,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":1,"count":1251,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":3,"category_count":1251,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Prelims","category_nicename":"prelims","category_parent":1}],"tag_info":[{"term_id":39,"name":"Indian Polity","slug":"indian-polity","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":39,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":188,"filter":"raw"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2070","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2070"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2070\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2070"},{"taxonomy":"years","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lotusarise.com\/qna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/years?post=2070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}