Centre for SC/ ST quota in promotion

The Centre on Friday batted in favour of reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) before the Supreme Court claiming that these castes are still backward by virtue of their caste/tribe and this class of citizens cannot be denied reservation benefits in promotion for want of proof to show their backwardness.

The submission was made by the Attorney General KK Venugopal before a Constitution Bench questioning a 2006 decision passed by a five-judge apex bench in M Nagaraj case that put a precondition of proving backwardness of SC/ST by way of "quantifiable data" before granting promotion under the reserved category. Venugopal demanded recall of the 2006 verdict as it failed to recognize SC/ST as "deemed backward" and dissected this class of citizens further as those that are backward and those who are not, which was never intended by the Constitution makers.

The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Indu Malhotra, asked the A-G whether proof of backwardness was the only concern that bothered the Centre, which claimed that lakhs of posts were vacant as the Nagaraj decision required Centre/states to provide data on backwardness and inadequate representation of castes/tribes sought to be promoted.

Further, the 2006 decision further required the Government to ensure efficiency of administration does not get affected.

Promotion in reservation for SC/ST is presently covered under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution, introduced by the Government after the SC speaking through the Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992 deprived SC/ST and other backward classes from reservation in promotion.

The Government restored it for all backward classes of citizens.Venugopal argued that the 2006 judgment had many flaws.

While introducing the need for furnishing data, no standards were fixed on whether the benchmark to assess adequacy of representation and efficiency in administration should be among a particular post, or class of posts or the service altogether. Also, the judgment was silent on its retrospective operation.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan who opposed the Centre's appeal submitted that quota in promotion violates equality but Nagaraj judgment said that if there is "compelling reason", only then such reservation must be resorted to.

The compelling reason required to be backed by data. His arguments will continue on August 16.