Relevance: GS-2: Powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies; Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Key Phrases : Reservation in Promotion, quantifiable data, inadequacy of representation, efficiency of administration, wisdom of the States, Classes/Groups and cadres, reasonable period of review, prospective effect, Data-driven governance.

Why in news?

• The recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022, has once again turned the spotlight on one of the most emotive and volatile issues in India, that is, reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Background of the Judgement:

• The case reached the Apex Court on account of multiple High Courts striking down the policies of reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes framed by the Central and State Governments, on the basis of a 2006 judgement of a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2006.
• The Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj Case, 2006, upheld the power of the Government, as enshrined in Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution of India, to provide for reservation in promotions.
• However, while doing so, it had laid down multiple pre-conditions on the exercise of such power:
  • The requirements of collecting “quantifiable data” showing backwardness of the class,
  • Inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment and
  • Ensuring that the efficiency of administration was not compromised with.
• In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) the requirement of collecting quantifiable data showing the backwardness of SCs and STs was done away with.
• However, the requirement of collecting quantifiable data showing the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment still remained.
  • It is on account of non-compliance of this pre-condition that multiple High Courts across the country had struck down policies of reservation in promotion framed by the Centre and States.

Keypoints of the present Judgement:

The recent judgement has further developed the jurisprudence on this pre-condition, clarifying multiple aspects of it on the asking of the Governments.

• As regards the yardstick to be applied for determining inadequacy of representation, the Court left the determination of such yardstick to the wisdom of the State Governments, as "the prevailing local conditions, which may require to be factored in, might not be uniform".
  • A one-size-fits-all approach was thus rejected.
• The Court further negated the suggestion of the Attorney General for India that the proportion of SCs and STs to the population of India should be the test for determining inadequacy of representation, again leaving it to the wisdom of the States to assess such inadequacy at their own level.

As regards the unit to be applied for the collection of quantifiable data, the Court held in categorical terms that such unit is to be the 'cadre'.

• It defined 'cadre' as "the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought".
• It further distinguished 'cadres' from Classes/Groups such as Class I, Class II and so on, or Group A, Group B and so on, on the basis of which services, both at the Centre and States, are normally organized.

• It thus declared as bad law its 2019 judgement in B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, which had approved the collection of quantifiable data on the basis of Groups and not ‘cadres'.
• The Apex Court also held that the data collected to determine adequacy of representation should be periodically reviewed.
• It introduces a requirement, not there in M. Nagaraj Judgement.
• It will ensure that reservations, howsoever validly provided initially, do not become cast in stone.
• The Court, however, stopped short of laying down an exact period of review, again leaving it to the Governments to decide with the only caveat being that it should be “reasonable".
• Hence, while Governments have the discretion in determining the test for adequacy or in deciding the time period of review, they have no discretion whatsoever in applying any unit other than a 'cadre' for the collection of data.
• However, the court maintained that it would adjudicate if inadequacy has been established or not “on a case-to-case basis”, as held by earlier Supreme Court judgments.
• The court also said that the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in a 2006 judgment would have “prospective effect”.
  • This means the promotions awarded before 2006 without following the conditions laid down by the court would not be struck down.

Way Forward:

• Critics argue that collecting data on the basis of 'cadres' may seem an uphill task for the concerned Government.
  • As per the data submitted before the Supreme Court, the Central Government alone has around 30 lakh employees working in around 90 different Ministries/Departments, and as per the data received from 44 Ministries/Departments, there are about 3800 cadres existing in these 44 Ministries/Departments alone.
  • On top of this, state governments would have their own cadres.
• The task may seem daunting but the Government had conducted the Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011, enumerating not just a population of over 1.2 billion but also collecting information about their caste.
• Data-driven governance and IT solutions may further simplify the exercise of collecting data based on ‘cadre’.

Conclusion:

• This judgment clarifies how data must be collected for reservations in promotions.
• The judicial debate becomes important since the confusion about data collection has often meant the de facto denial of reservations in promotions.

Source: Live Law , The Hindu

Mains Question:

Q. The recent apex court verdict in Jarnail Singh Case(II), 2022 brings in much needed clarity, enabling states to provide reservation in promotion. Discuss.