Quick answer
Yes, but only if the State chooses to and follows constitutional conditions. In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court upheld the amendments that allow reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) with consequential seniority, calling them enabling provisions (they permit, but do not compel, reservation). The State must show inadequacy of representation and keep administrative efficiency in mind under Article 335. Nagaraj also required quantifiable data on SC/ST backwardness, but Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) held that part invalid.
The cases
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, AIR 2007 SC 71, Supreme Court of India, 19 October 2006, five judges (opinion by S.H. Kapadia, J.). Upheld the Constitution (77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th) Amendments, which inserted or changed Articles 16(4A), 16(4B) and the proviso to Article 335. The State is not bound to reserve in promotions; if it does, it must show backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency, and must respect the 50% ceiling and the creamy layer concept.
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396, Supreme Court of India, 26 September 2018, five judges (opinion by R.F. Nariman, J.). Nagaraj need not be referred to seven judges, but its requirement of quantifiable data showing the backwardness of SCs and STs is contrary to Indra Sawhney (1992) and invalid to that extent. Reason: the Presidential lists under Articles 341 and 342 already identify SCs as groups historically treated as untouchable and STs as socially extremely backward, so their backwardness need not be proved again. Creamy layer exclusion can apply to SCs and STs.
The amendments in brief
- Article 16(4A): allows reservation in promotion, with consequential seniority (seniority that follows the promotion), for SCs and STs not adequately represented in State services.
- Article 16(4B): allows unfilled reserved vacancies of a year to be carried forward as a separate class, which is not counted with the later year's vacancies when applying the 50% ceiling.
- Proviso to Article 335: permits relaxation of qualifying marks or standards of evaluation for SCs and STs in promotion.
Nagaraj conditions: what survives
| Condition laid down in Nagaraj (2006) | Position after Jarnail Singh (2018) |
|---|---|
| Quantifiable data on backwardness of SCs/STs | Not required; held contrary to Indra Sawhney |
| Quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation | Still required, relatable to the cadre concerned |
| Administrative efficiency (Article 335) | Still required |
| 50% ceiling and creamy layer | Still constitutional requirements; creamy layer can apply to SCs/STs |
Later clarification (2022)
In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (28 January 2022), a three-judge bench (L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, JJ.) held that the Court cannot lay down a yardstick for adequacy of representation, that the cadre (not a whole group of posts) is the unit for collecting data, and that the data must be reviewed periodically, with the period left to the Government.
A State department wants to reserve promotions to the post of Section Officer for SCs and STs. It need not collect fresh data to prove that SCs and STs are backward. But it must collect data showing that SCs and STs are inadequately represented in the Section Officer cadre, consider efficiency under Article 335, and review that data periodically. If Renu's promotion under such a policy is challenged, these are the points the court will check.
For a fuller brief, see M. Nagaraj v. Union of India. For the nine-judge background on reservation, see Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.
Exam point
Nagaraj (2006) upheld Article 16(4A) and 16(4B) as enabling provisions; Jarnail Singh (2018) removed only the need for data on SC/ST backwardness, while data on inadequate representation and the efficiency test remain.
