The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the government about the process it used to justify decisions to give quotas in promotions to employees from Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) on the grounds that they have insufficient representation in jobs and that the reservation will not have an adverse effect on overall administrative efficiency.
If a judicial challenge to the quota in promotions for SCs and STs in a particular cadre of a job is filed, the government will have to justify it on the grounds that they are underrepresented in that cadre and that granting quota will not harm overall administrative efficiency, according to a three-judge bench led by Justice L Nageswara Rao.
“Please don’t get into a philosophical debate. Show us the numbers. How do you justify reservations in promotions, and what exercises have you done to back up your choices? Please follow our instructions and inform us,” urged the bench, which included justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai.
Attorney General KK Venugopal, representing the government, pointed to Supreme Court decisions dating back to the Indra Sawhney verdict in 1992, also known as the Mandal Commission case, to the Jarnail Singh verdict in 2018.
Quotas in promotions were outlawed by the Mandal decision.
“What’s important to remember is that the Indra Sawhney decision dealt with the backward classes, not the SCs and STs,” the law officer explained.
“This decision considers whether every group should be allocated proportional reservations based on their population. Then it says, “No, it should not be given,” since it will significantly exceed the 50% cap,” he explained.
According to him, Article 16 of the Constitution mandates equality in public employment, and if merit alone is the criterion, the SCs and STs, who are socially disadvantaged, may not be able to compete.
According to the law officer, until 1975, 3.5 percent of SCs and 0.62 percent of STs worked for the government, and this was the average figure.
In 2008, the percentage of SCs and STs employed by the government was 17.5 and 6.8%, respectively, which he argued was still inadequate and justified the quota.
The hearing will be continued today in court.
Previously, on September 14, the Supreme Court stated that it would not reconsider its decision allowing reservation in promotions to SCs and STs, stating that it was up to the states to decide how to implement it.
The bench had stated, “We are making it clear that we would not reopen the Nagraj or Jarnail Singh (cases) because the purpose was merely to settle these instances in conformity with the law put down by the court.”
The issues raised by Attorney General KK Venugopal and others are broadening the scope of cases, according to the report.
“That is not something we are willing to undertake.” There are several problems that have already been decided in Nagraj that we will not address. The bench had stated, “We are very clear that we would not allow any arguments for reopening of cases or claiming that the law given down by Indira Sawhney is incorrect because the fundamental scope of these cases is to apply the law as laid down by this court,”
KK Venugopal had argued before the Supreme Court that practically all of these issues had been addressed by Supreme Court decisions, and that he will provide a history of all cases involving reservation since the Indira Sawhney case.
The Attorney General stated that the Union of India’s difficulty is that three interim High Court decisions have been issued, two of which say that promotions can continue, and one High Court has issued status quo rulings on promotions.
“The Government of India has 1,400 secretariat-level posts that have been unfilled because all three directives dealt with regular promotions. The question is whether regular appointment promotions can continue to be made, and whether this has an impact on reserved seats.
“Another 2,500 positions have been stagnant for years due to status quo orders linked to regular promotions.” “The government intends to issue those promotions on an ad hoc basis without any rights,” KK Venugopal had stated in his request for a stay on the government official’s contempt charge.
Previously, Maharashtra and other states claimed that promotions were made in unreserved categories, but that promotions in reserved categories for SC and ST employees were not given.
A five-judge constitution bench refused in 2018 to refer the 2006 M Nagraj judgement, in which the creamy layer concept was extended to the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), to a larger seven-judge bench for reconsideration.
It also paved the way for the grant of quotas for SCs and STs in government jobs, and it modified the 2006 judgement so that states will not be required to “collect quantifiable data” reflecting these communities’ backwardness in order to justify the quota in promotions.
However, the Supreme Court upheld the other conditions in 2018, saying that governments must justify quota promotions for SCs and STs by demonstrating that their representation in that particular job is insufficient and that this will not affect overall administrative efficiency.
The Chenab Times News Desk