# JARNAIL SINGH & ORS v. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 19 S.C.R. 711
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-01-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.629 of 2022
- **Bench:** L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, B. R. Gavai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jarnail-singh-ors-v-lachhmi-narain-gupta-ors-36002
- **Pages:** 46

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B)
and 335 - Reservation in promotion - Collection of quantifiable
data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs -
Yardstick for arriving at quantifiable data - In M. Nagaraj case the
key issue that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court
was whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art.16(4)
and Art.335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments
resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) - The Supreme Court upheld
the constitutional amendments - The amendments were held to be
enabling provisions - It was observed that the State is not bound to
make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however,
if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect
quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and
inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in
addition to compliance with Art.335 of the Constitution - What is
the yardstick by which, according to M. Nagaraj case, one would
arrive at quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation
of SCs and STs in public employment - Held: Laying down of criteria
for determining the inadequacy of representation would result in
curtailing the discretion given to the State Governments - In addition,
the prevailing local conditions, which may require to be factored
in, might not be uniform - Moreover, in M. Nagaraj case, the Court
made it clear that the validity of law made by the State Governments
providing reservation in promotions shall be decided on a case-tocase basis for the purpose of establishing whether the inadequacy
of representation is supported by quantifiable data - Therefore, no
yardstick can be laid down by the court for determining the adequacy
of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the
purpose of providing reservation - Reservation.
 [2022] 19 S.C.R. 711
711
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B)
and 335 - Reservation in promotion - Collection of quantifiable
data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs - Unit
for collecting quantifiable data - In M. Nagaraj case the key issue
that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court was whether
any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art.16(4) and Art.335
stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments resulting in Arts.
16(4-A) and 16(4-B) - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional
amendments - The amendments were held to be enabling provisions
- It was observed that the State is not bound to make reservation
for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however, if it wishes to
exercise its discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data
showing the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of
representation of that class in public employment, in addition to
compliance with Art.335 of the Constitution - What is the unit with
respect to which quantifiable data showing inadequacy of
representation is required to be collected - Held: In M. Nagaraj
case, the Supreme Court approved that the percentage of reservation
in promotions was to be applied to the entire cadre strength, as held
in R.K. Sabharwal case - While doing so, the court in M. Nagaraj
made it clear that the unit for operation of the roster would be the
cadre strength - Before providing for reservation in promotions to
a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding
inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs - Collection of
information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs
cannot be with reference to the entire service or 'class'/'group' but
it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which
promotion is sought - Cadre, which should be the unit for the purpose
of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional
post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation
of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire service - R

## Text

_Characters 0–39,792 of 109,950. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39792 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
711
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS.
v.
LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.629 of 2022)
JANUARY 28, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA AND
B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B)
and 335 - Reservation in promotion - Collection of quantifiable
data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs -
Yardstick for arriving at quantifiable data - In M. Nagaraj case the
key issue that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court
was whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art.16(4)
and Art.335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments
resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) - The Supreme Court upheld
the constitutional amendments - The amendments were held to be
enabling provisions - It was observed that the State is not bound to
make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however,
if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect
quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and
inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in
addition to compliance with Art.335 of the Constitution - What is
the yardstick by which, according to M. Nagaraj case, one would
arrive at quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation
of SCs and STs in public employment - Held: Laying down of criteria
for determining the inadequacy of representation would result in
curtailing the discretion given to the State Governments - In addition,
the prevailing local conditions, which may require to be factored
in, might not be uniform - Moreover, in M. Nagaraj case, the Court
made it clear that the validity of law made by the State Governments
providing reservation in promotions shall be decided on a case-tocase basis for the purpose of establishing whether the inadequacy
of representation is supported by quantifiable data - Therefore, no
yardstick can be laid down by the court for determining the adequacy
of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the
purpose of providing reservation - Reservation.
 [2022] 19 S.C.R. 711
711
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B)
and 335 - Reservation in promotion - Collection of quantifiable
data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs - Unit
for collecting quantifiable data - In M. Nagaraj case the key issue
that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court was whether
any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art.16(4) and Art.335
stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments resulting in Arts.
16(4-A) and 16(4-B) - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional
amendments - The amendments were held to be enabling provisions
- It was observed that the State is not bound to make reservation
for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however, if it wishes to
exercise its discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data
showing the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of
representation of that class in public employment, in addition to
compliance with Art.335 of the Constitution - What is the unit with
respect to which quantifiable data showing inadequacy of
representation is required to be collected - Held: In M. Nagaraj
case, the Supreme Court approved that the percentage of reservation
in promotions was to be applied to the entire cadre strength, as held
in R.K. Sabharwal case - While doing so, the court in M. Nagaraj
made it clear that the unit for operation of the roster would be the
cadre strength - Before providing for reservation in promotions to
a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding
inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs - Collection of
information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs
cannot be with reference to the entire service or 'class'/'group' but
it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which
promotion is sought - Cadre, which should be the unit for the purpose
of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional
post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation
of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire service - Reservation.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B)
and 335 - Reservation in promotion - Quantifiable data regarding
representation of SCs and STs - Proportionate representation as
test of adequacy - In M. Nagaraj case the key issue that was identified
and decided by the Supreme Court was whether any constitutional
limitation mentioned in Art.16(4) and Art.335 stood obliterated by
the constitutional amendments resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4B) - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
713
The amendments were held to be enabling provisions - It was
observed that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs
and STs in matters of promotion, however, if it wishes to exercise its
discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing the
backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that
class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Art.335
of the Constitution - Whether proportion of the population of SCs
and STs to the population of India should be taken to be the test for
determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts for
the purposes of Art.16(4-A) - Held: In M. Nagaraj case, the Court
was of the considered view that the exercise of collecting quantifiable
data depends on numerous factors, with conflicting claims to be
optimised by the administration in the context of local prevailing
conditions in public employment - As equity, justice and efficiency
are variable factors and are context-specific, how these factors
should be identified and counter-balanced will depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case - The Court in Jarnail Singh found
no fault with M. Nagaraj case regarding the test for determining the
adequacy of representation in promotional posts in the State - It is
for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and
STs in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors -
Reservation.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B)
and 335 - Reservation in promotion - Quantifiable data regarding
inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs - Review of - Period
for review - In M. Nagaraj case the key issue that was identified
and decided by the Supreme Court was whether any constitutional
limitation mentioned in Art.16(4) and Art.335 stood obliterated by
the constitutional amendments resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4B) - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments -
The amendments were held to be enabling provisions - It was
observed that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs
and STs in matters of promotion, however, if it wishes to exercise its
discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing the
backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that
class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Art.335
of the Constitution - Should there be a time period for reviewing
inadequacy of representation - Held: Data collected to determine
inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS.v. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
reservation in promotions needs to be reviewed periodically - The
period for review should be reasonable and is left to the Government
to set out - Reservation.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B),
142 and 335 - Reservation in promotion - Prospective operation
of the judgment in M. Nagaraj case - In M. Nagaraj case the key
issue that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court was
whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art.16(4) and
Art.335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments resulting
in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) - The Supreme Court upheld the
constitutional amendments - The amendments were held to be
enabling provisions - It was observed that the State is not bound to
make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however,
if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect
quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and
inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in
addition to compliance with Art.335 of the Constitution - Whether
the judgment in M. Nagaraj case can be said to operate prospectively
- Held: In Golak Nath and Ashok Kumar cases, it was laid down that
Art. 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to mould
the relief to do complete justice - The purpose of holding that
M. Nagaraj would have prospective effect is only to avoid chaos
and confusion that would ensue from its retrospective operation, as
it would have a debilitating effect on a very large number of
employees, who may have availed of reservation in promotions
without there being strict compliance of the conditions prescribed
in M. Nagaraj case - Most of them would have already retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation - The judgment of
M. Nagaraj was delivered in 2006, interpreting Art.16(4-A) of the
Constitution which came into force in 1995 - As making the
principles laid down in M. Nagaraj effective from the year 1995
would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants
and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals
over a long period of time, the judgment of M. Nagaraj should be
declared to have prospective effect - Reservation.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B)
and 335 - Reservation in promotion - Quantifiable data regarding
inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs - In M. Nagaraj case
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
715
the key issue that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court
was whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art.16(4)
and Art.335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments
resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) - The Supreme Court upheld
the constitutional amendments - The amendments were held to be
enabling provisions - It was observed that the State is not bound to
make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however,
if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect
quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and
inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in
addition to compliance with Art.335 of the Constitution - Whether
quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation can be
collected on the basis of sampling methods, as held by the court in
B.K. Pavitra II case - Held: The State should justify reservation in
promotions with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made -
Taking into account the data pertaining to a 'group', which would
be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give
the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and
STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is
sought to be made - For collection of quantifiable data to assess
representation of SCs and STs for providing reservation in
promotions, cadre, which is a part of a 'group', is the unit and the
data has to be collected with respect to each cadre - Therefore, the
conclusion of the court in B.K. Pavitra II case approving the
collection of data on the basis of 'groups' and not cadres is contrary
to the law laid down in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh cases.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.142 - Art.142 of the
Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to mould the relief to do
complete justice.
Doctrines / Principles - Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
- Discussed.
Administrative action - Judicial review of - Scope - Held: It
is neither legal nor proper for the Courts to issue directions or
advisory sermons to the executive in respect of the sphere which is
exclusively within their domain under the Constitution.
Service Jurisprudence - Term "cadre" - Meaning and legal
connotation of - Discussed - Words and Phrases.
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS.v. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
Answering the issues, the Court
HELD:
1. YARDSTICK FOR ARRIVING AT QUANTIFIABLE
DATA
1.1. Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution are
enabling provisions. It was held in M. Nagaraj case that the
discretion of the State to provide reservation is subject to the
existence of backwardness and inadequacy of representation in
public employment. It was further held that backwardness has to
be based on objective factors whereas inadequacy has to factually
exist. There is no fixed yardstick to identify equality, justice and
efficiency which are variable factors and it depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case. The Court was of the further
opinion that the concepts of efficiency, backwardness, inadequacy
of representation are required to be identified and measured on
the basis of data. In case of a challenge made to reservations
provided by the State Government, it is incumbent on the State
Government to satisfy the Court that the decision is supported
by quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and
inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment,
in addition to compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of
India. [Para 11][732-E-H]
1.2. The exercise of identifying and measuring concepts of
efficiency, backwardness and inadequacy of representation on the
basis of data depends on numerous factors. It is for this reason
that the enabling provisions are required to be made because
each competing claim seeks to achieve certain goals. How best
one should optimise these conflicting claims can only be done by
the administration in the context of local prevailing conditions in
public employment. [Para 12][733-A-B]
1.3. It is well-established that it is neither legal nor proper
for the Courts to issue directions or advisory sermons to the
executive in respect of the sphere which is exclusively within
their domain under the Constitution. [Para 14][733-A-D]
1.4. Determination of inadequate representation of SCs and
STs in services under a State is left to the discretion of the State,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
717
as the determination depends upon myriad factors which the court
cannot envisage. A conscious decision was taken by the court in
M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh to leave it to the States to fix the
criteria for determining inadequacy of representation. The
submission of the Attorney General for India that the court has
to lay down the yardstick for measuring adequacy of
representation did not yield a favourable result as the court in
Jarnail Singh found it befitting for the States to have the liberty
to evaluate the representation of SCs and STs in public
employment. Laying down of criteria for determining the
inadequacy of representation would result in curtailing the
discretion given to the State Governments. In addition, the
prevailing local conditions, which may require to be factored in,
might not be uniform. Moreover, in M. Nagaraj, the Court made
it clear that the validity of law made by the State Governments
providing reservation in promotions shall be decided on a caseto-case basis for the purpose of establishing whether the
inadequacy of representation is supported by quantifiable data.
Therefore, no yardstick can be laid down by the court for
determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in
promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation. [Para
16][734-D-H]
2. UNIT FOR COLLECTING QUANTIFIABLE DATA
2.1. In M.Nagaraj case, the Court observed that the
appropriate Government has to apply cadre strength as a unit in
the operation of the roster in order to ascertain whether a given
class/group is adequately represented in the service. Cadre
strength as a unit also ensures that the upper ceiling limit of 50
per cent is not violated. Following the law laid down in R.K.
Sabharwal, the court in M. Nagaraj further held that the roster
has to be post-specific and not vacancy based. [Para 19][736-AB]
2.2. In M. Nagaraj case, the Court held that it is open to
the State to provide for reservation in promotions subject to
limitation that there must exist compelling reasons for
backwardness, inadequacy of representation in a class of post(s)
keeping in mind the overall administrative efficiency. While
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS.v. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
referring to the roster, the Court observed that the appropriate
Government has to apply the cadre strength as a unit in the
operation of the roster in order to ascertain whether a given class/
group is adequately represented in the service. Collection of
quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation as
stipulated by M. Nagaraj is relatable to the cadre concerned,
according to Jarnail Singh. [Para 20][736-B-D]
2.3. It is clear from the statutory regime and the law laid
down by the Supreme Court that civil posts under the
Government are organised into different services. A service
constitutes 'classes'/ 'groups' of posts. A 'class'/'group' is further
bifurcated into grades. Though the nomenclature might be
different, the structure of services under the Union and the States
is similar. According to the instructions issued by the Union of
India, cadres are constituted for each grade. Fundamental Rule
9(4) defines "cadre" to mean the strength of a service or part of
a service sanctioned as a separate unit. It is the choice of a State
to constitute cadres. The entire service cannot be considered to
be a cadre for the purpose of promotion from one post to a higher
post in a different grade. Promotion is made from one grade to
the next higher grade, in relation to which cadres are constituted.
A cadre is constituted by the Government by taking into account
several factors within its sole discretion. [Para 28][741-C-F]
2.4. In the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997, the
Union of India set out the principles for making and operating
post-based rosters, in which it has been expressly stated that
cadre is to be construed as the number of posts in a particular
grade. It is made clear that rosters have been prepared gradewise which are reviewed on a yearly basis and that reservation in
promotions is implemented on the basis of these rosters, which
operate grade-wise. In M. Nagaraj, the Supreme Court approved
that the percentage of reservation in promotions was to be applied
to the entire cadre strength, as held in R.K. Sabharwal. While
doing so, the court in M. Nagaraj made it clear that the unit for
operation of the roster would be the cadre strength. Before
providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is
obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
representation of SCs and STs. Collection of information
regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs cannot
be with reference to the entire service or 'class'/'group' but it
should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which
promotion is sought. Cadre, which should be the unit for the
purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the
promotional post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to
representation of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire
service. [Para 29][741-F-H; 742-A-B]
3. PROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION AS TEST OF
ADEQUACY
In R.K. Sabharwal, it was observed that State Governments
may take the total population of a particular Backward Class and
its representation in the State services for the purpose of coming
to a conclusion that there is inadequate representation in the
State services. In M. Nagaraj, the Court was of the considered
view that the exercise of collecting quantifiable data depends on
numerous factors, with conflicting claims to be optimised by the
administration in the context of local prevailing conditions in
public employment. As equity, justice and efficiency are variable
factors and are context-specific, how these factors should be
identified and counter-balanced will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The Court in Jarnail Singh found no
fault with M. Nagaraj regarding the test for determining the
adequacy of representation in promotional posts in the State.
While emphasising the contrast in the language used between
Article 330 and Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) of the Constitution,
the Court declined the invitation of the Attorney General for India
to hold that the proportion of SCs and STs to the population of
India should be the test for determining inadequacy of
representation in promotional posts. Therefore, this Court is not
persuaded to express any opinion on this aspect. It is for the
State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs
in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors. [Para
30][742-C-G]
4. TIME PERIOD FOR REVIEW
There is near unanimity amongst the counsel for both sides
that the data collected to establish inadequacy of representation,
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS.v. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
which forms the basis for providing reservation for promotions,
should be reviewed periodically. This Court is not inclined to
express any view on discontinuation of reservations in totality,
which is completely within the domain of the legislature and the
executive. As regards review, the data collected to determine
inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing
reservation in promotions needs to be reviewed periodically. The
period for review should be reasonable and is left to the
Government to set out. [Para 31][742-H; 743-C-D]
5. PROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT
IN M. NAGARAJ
In Golak Nath and Ashok Kumar cases, it was laid down that
Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to
mould the relief to do complete justice. The purpose of holding
that M. Nagaraj would have prospective effect is only to avoid
chaos and confusion that would ensue from its retrospective
operation, as it would have a debilitating effect on a very large
number of employees, who may have availed of reservation in
promotions without there being strict compliance of the conditions
prescribed in M. Nagaraj. Most of them would have already
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The
judgment of M. Nagaraj was delivered in 2006, interpreting Article
16(4-A) of the Constitution which came into force in 1995. As
making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj effective from the
year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of
civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority
of individuals over a long period of time, it is necessary that the
judgment of M.Nagaraj should be declared to have prospective
effect. [Para 42][752-G; 753-A-C]
6. QUANTIFIABLE DATA AND SAMPLING METHOD
6.1. Collection of quantifiable data for determining the
inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs is a basic requirement
for providing reservation in promotions, as laid down by this court
in M. Nagaraj case. The unit for the purpose of collection of data
is a cadre, according to Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh. For the
purpose of collection of quantifiable data for providing reservation
in promotions, the entire service cannot be taken to be a unit
and treated as a cadre. [Para 45][755-F-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
721
6.2. The State should justify reservation in promotions with
respect to the cadre to which promotion is made. Taking into
account the data pertaining to a 'group', which would be an
amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the
correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and
STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is
sought to be made. Rosters are prepared cadre-wise and not
group-wise. Sampling method adopted by the Ratna Prabha
Committee (which submitted 'Report on Backwardness,
Inadequacy of Representation and Administrative Efficiency in
Karnataka') might be a statistical formula appropriate for
collection of data. However, for the purpose of collection of
quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for the
purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is
a part of a 'group', is the unit and the data has to be collected
with respect to each cadre. Therefore, the conclusion of the court
in B.K. Pavitra II approving the collection of data on the basis of
'groups' and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by the
court in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh. [Para 47][756-D-G]
M. Nagaraj & Ors.v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8
SCC 212 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336 - held
prospectively applicable.
I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. [1967]
2 SCR 762 and Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of
U.P. & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 201 : [1997] 3 SCR 269 -
relied on.
A.K. Subraman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1975)
1 SCC 319 : [1975] 2 SCR 979; Dr Chakradhar
Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 214 :
[1988] 3 SCR 130; Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : [1992] 2 Suppl.
SCR 454; Union of India & Ors. v. Virpal Singh
Chauhan & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 684 : [1995] 4 Suppl.
SCR 158; State of Tripura & Ors. v. Jayanta
Chakraborty & Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 146 : [2017] 11
SCR 247; State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Vijay Ghogre
& Ors. (2018) 17 SCC 261; Jarnail Singh & Ors. v.
Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 396 :
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS.v. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
[2018] 10 SCR 663; B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. (2019) 16 SCC 129 : [2019] 7 SCR 1086;
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited v. Rajesh
Kumar & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 1; Mallikarjuna Rao &
Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC
707 : [1990] 2 SCR 418; Asif Hameed & Ors. v. State
of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. 1989 Supp. 2 SCC 364:
[1989] 3 SCR 19; P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of
Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578; R.K. Sabharwal & Ors.
v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 745 : [1995] 2
SCR 35; K. Manickaraj v. Union of India (1997) 4 SCC
342 : [1997] 3 SCR 504; Union of India v. Pushpa Rani
& Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 242 : [2008] 11 SCR 440; State
of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni (1996) 1 SCC 562 :
[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 559; Union of India & Anr. v.
Lieutenant Colonel P.K. Choudhary & Ors. (2016) 4
SCC 236 : [2016] 2 SCR 426; Sub-Inspector Rooplal
& Anr. v. Lt. Governor & Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 644 : [1999]
5 Suppl. SCR 310; Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India &
Ors., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641 : [1994] 1 SCR 754; Lily
Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC
224 : [2000] 3 SCR 1081; Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State
of Orissa & Ors. 1991 Supp (1) SCC 430 : [1991]
2 SCR 105; Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. & Anr. v.
State of U.P. & Anr. (2001) 5 SCC 519 : [2001] 3 SCR
33; General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari
[1962] 2 SCR 586; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 281 :
[1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 507; Goan Real Estate and
Construction Limited & Anr. v. Union of India& Ors.
(2010) 5 SCC 388 : [2010] 3 SCR 1160; M.A. Murthy
v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 517 : [2003]
3 Suppl. SCR 327; Ashok Kumar Sharma & Anr. v.
Chander Shekher & Anr. (Ashok Kumar Sharma case
No.I ) 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR
768; Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Chander Shekhar
& Anr. (Ashok Kumar Sharma case No. II ) (1997) 4
SCC 18 : [1997] 2 SCR 896; H.H. Maharajadhiraja
Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
723
& Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1971) 1 SCC 85 :
[1971] 3 SCR 9 and Girnar Traders v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 555 : [2007] 9 SCR
383 - referred to.
Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co. 215 U.S. 349 (1910);
Linkletter v. Walker 1965 SCC Online US SC 126; Mapp
v. Ohio 643 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Weeks v. United States
232 U.S. 383 (1914); Wolf v. Colorado 338 U.S. 25
(1949) - referred to.
Blackstone, Commentaries (15th ed. 1809) - referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454
referred to
Para 2
[1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 158
referred to
Para 5
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336
held prospectively
applicable
Para 7
[2017] 11 SCR 247
referred to
Para 8
(2018) 17 SCC 261
referred to
Para 8
[2018] 10 SCR 663
referred to
Para 8
[2019] 7 SCR 1086
referred to
Para 10
(2012) 7 SCC 1
referred to
Para 12
[1990] 2 SCR 418
referred to
Para 14
[1989] 3 SCR 19
referred to
Para 14
(2002) 4 SCC 578
referred to
Para 15
[1995] 2 SCR 35
referred to
Para 17
[1975] 2 SCR 979
referred to
Para 24
[1988] 3 SCR 130
referred to
Para 24
[1997] 3 SCR 504
referred to
Para 25
[2008] 11 SCR 440
referred to
Para 25
[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 559
referred to
Para 26
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS.v. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
[2016] 2 SCR 426
referred to
Para 26
[1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 310
referred to
Para 26
[1994] 1 SCR 754
referred to
Para 33
[2000] 3 SCR 1081
referred to
Para 33
[1967] 2 SCR 762
relied on
Para 34
[1997] 3 SCR 269
relied on
Para 35
[1991] 2 SCR 105
referred to
Para 35
[2001] 3 SCR 33
referred to
Para 35
[1962] 2 SCR 586
referred to
Para 38
[1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 507
referred to
Para 39
[2010] 3 SCR 1160
referred to
Para 39
[2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 327
referred to
Para 40
[1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 768
referred to
Para 40
[1997] 2 SCR 896
referred to
Para 40
[1971] 3 SCR 9
referred to
Para 41
[2007] 9 SCR 383
referred to
Para 41
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL/INHERENT JURISDICTION
: Civil Appeal No.629 Of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2011 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.13218 of 2009.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.630, 631, 632, 636, 635, 633, 637, 638, 642, 753,
759, 643-644, 646, 703-704, 735, 645, 713 And 648 of 2022, Civil Appeal
Nos.4876-4877, 4878-4879, 4880, 4881, 4882 of 2017, Civil Appeal
Nos.11817, 11816 And 11820 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.651 Of 2022,
Civil Appeal Nos.4833 And 701-704 Of 2017, Civil Appeal Nos.1182211825, 11837-11840, 11842-11845, 11829-11832, 11847-11850 And 11828
of 2016, Contempt Petition (C) No.13 Of 2017 In Civil Appeal Nos.45624564 of 2017, Civil Appeal Nos.734, 724-727, 736 of 2022, Contempt
Petition (C) No.11 Of 2017 In Civil Appeal Nos.4562-4564 of 2017,
Contempt Petition (C) No.314 Of 2016 In Slp (C) No.4831 of 2012,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
725
Civil Appeal No.5247 Of 2016, T.p. (C) Nos.608-609 Of 2017, Civil
Appeal Nos.652, 764, 656, 654-655, 647, 649, 650, 653, 657, 663, 754,
755, 768-775, 752, 659-660, 658, 683-694, 661, 765, 761-763, 777-780,
695-702, 766, 776, 767 And 662 of 2022, Slp (C)....@ Diary No.38895
of 2017, Civil Appeal Nos.677, 678, 670, 671, 679, 672, 673, 674, 707708, 782, 757, 715-723, 681-682, 756, 666, 750-751, 667, 747-749, 668669, 758 of 2022, Contempt Petition (C) No.985 of 2018 In Civil Appeal
No.5247 of 2016, Civil Appeal Nos.516, 705, 760, 675-676, 517-519,
706, 711, 634 And 680 of 2022, Contempt Petition (C) No.1067 of 2019
In Slp (C) No.30621 of 2011, Civil Appeal Nos.522-627, 714, 730, 729,
732 And 728 of 2022, Writ Petition (C) No.1371 of 2019, Civil Appeal
Nos.731 And 1078 Of 2022, Civil Appeal No.1004 of 2020, Civil Appeal
No.2434 of 2019, Civil Appeal Nos.664, 738-739, 709-710, 737, 733,
741, 740, 742, 743, 744, 628, 745 And 746 of 2022, Contempt Petition
(C) Nos.200-201 of 2021 In Slp (C) Nos.5724-5725 of 2019, Contempt
Petition (C) Nos.211-212 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No.5247 of 2016, Writ
Petition (C) No.882 of 2021, Contempt Petition (C) Nos.378-379 of 2021
In Civil Appeal Nos.11837-11840 of 2016
K. K. Venugopal, AG, Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Madhvi Divan, Balbir
Singh, Sanjay Jain, Vikramjit Banerjee, Rupinder Singh Suri, Aman Lekhi,
ASGs, Saurabh Mishra, Vinod Diwakar, AAGs, R. Balasubramanium,
K. M. Nataraj, P. S. Patwalia, Ms. Kiran Suri, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Dr.
Menaka Gurusamy, R. D. Agrawala, Sanjay R. Hegde, Ranjit Kumar,
Krishnan Venugopal, Shyam Divan, Nidhesh Gupta, Rana Mukherjee,
Ms. Indira Jaising, Atul Yeshwant Chitale, Ms. Soumya Chakraborty,
Ms. Priya Hingorani, Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, Rakesh Dwivedi, Basant
Kumar Choudhary, Dinesh Dwivedi, Gopal Shankar Narayan, D. K.
Goswami, V. K. Shukla, Rakesh Khanna, Kapil Sibal, Ashok Kumar
Sharma, B. H. Marlapally, Arun Bhardwaj, Ms. Indira Jaising, Vinay Kr.
Garg, Sr. Advs., M. K. Maroria, Rajesh Ranjan, Shyam Gopal, Ms.
Shradha Deshmukh, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Ms. Chinmayee Chandra,
Apoorv Kurup, Siddhant Kohli, Ankur Talwar, Suhasini Sen, Ms.
Deepabali Dutta, A. K. Sharma, Amrish Kumar, B. V. Balaram Das,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, D. L. Chidanand, S. S. Rebello, Mehul Gupta,
B. K. Satija, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Avneesh Arputham, M/s Arputham Aruna
and Co., Manish Kumar, Pratik R. Bombarde, Suraj Kumar, Devendra
Singh, Ajay Singh, Pradeep S. Wathore, Devendra Kumar, Abhishek
Kumar, Shailesh Madiyal, Sudhanshu Prakash, Ms. Rakhi M., Ms. Sruthi
Iyer, Ms. Neha Jain, Vaibhav Sabharwal, Dr. K. S. Chauhan, Ajit Kumar
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS.v. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
Ekka, Murari Lal, R. S. M. Kalky, Ajit Kumar, Ravi Prakash, Sandeep
Malik, Sumit Kishore, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Sunil Kumar, S. P. Singh,
K. C. Lamba, Ramesh Kumar, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Pratishtha Vij,
Ms. Bihu Sharma, Akshay C. Shrivastava, Ms. Prerna Mehta, Naresh
Aditya Madhav, Ms. Shreyas Gacche, Vishal Jogdand, Ms. Swati Vaibhav,
Akshay Amritanshu, Dr. Gunratan Sadavarte, Dr. Jay Shree Patil, Raj
Singh Rana, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Kamal Kumar
Pandey, Makrand Pratap Singh, S. J. Amith, Krishna Kumar, Dr. (Mrs.)
Vipin Gupta, Irshad Ahmad, Dr. Dinesh Rattan Bharadwaj, Anurag
Rawat, Som Raj Choudhury, Kumar Parimal, Smarhar Singh, Sanjeev
Chowdhary, Prashant R. Dahat, Sangharaj D. Rupwate, Vijay
Nirbhavane, Akash Moon, Ms. Smita Kamble, Ms. Shraddha Vavhal,
Puneet Yadav, Sourabh Gupta, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Pradeep Kumar
Mathur, Chiranjeev Johri, Sameer Agrawal, Manoj Gorkela, M/s Gorkela
Law Office, Ms. Preeti Nair, Aditya Giri, Ms. Nikita Capoor, Shivendra
Singh, Ms. Apurva, Shuvodeep Roy, Ishaan Borthakaur, Deepak Jain,
Ms. Jaspreet Aulakh, Tanpreet Gulati, Georgey V. M., Ms. A. Sumathi,
Ms. Tanvi Kakar, Ansh Pandey, Atulesh Kumar, Ms. Suchitra A Chitale,
Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Vansaja Shukla, Manish Yadav, Anuradha
Mishra, Shobhit Tiwari, Lal Pratap Singh, Umesh Pratap Singh, Arjun
Aggarwal, Bhaskar Aditya, Gaurav Kejriwal, Chandra Bhushan Prasad,
Kripa Shankar Prasad, Pradeep Aggarwal, Vishal Singh, Ms. N.
Annapoorani, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Sidheshwar Namdev Biradar,
Yash Prashant Sonavane, Yogesh Ramesh Joshi, Rajat Sehgal, Vikas
Mehta, Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Dr. Shivani, J. B. Mudgil, Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Suyash Guru, Amol Shrivasta,
Sandeep Devashish Das, Ms. Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma, Chandan
Kumar, Mayan Prasad, P. Soma Sundaram, Suyash Mohan Guru, Ms.
Lalita Kaushik, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Manan Bansal, D. S. Rawat, Kumar
Parimal, Smarhar Singh, Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Ankur Chibber, H. S. Tiwari,
Anshuman Mehrotra, Nikunj Arora, Harsh Dhankar, Santosh Kumar
Pandey, P. V. Yogeswaran, Babul Kumar, Randheer Singh, Amit Pal,
Vaibhav Joshi, Suhaas Ratna Joshi, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Anmol
Chandan, G. S. Makker, Praveen Jain, Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Fuzail
Ahmad Ayyubi, Ms. Kanishka Prasad, Ibad Mushtaq, M. L. Lahoty,
Paban K Sharma, Anchit Sripat, P. N. Sharma, Himanshu Gupta, Manoj
C. Mishra, Ms. Rekha Pandey, L. C. Patne, Raghav Pandey, Aldanish
Rein, Ms. Maheravish Rein, Sanjay Kharde, Satyajeet Kharde, Sunil
Kumar Verma, D. Ramakrishna Reddy, S. Asif Ali Zaidi, Ms. D. Bharathi
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
727
Reddy, Mrigank Prabhakar, Ms. Trishna Das, Ms. Sakshi Banga, Ms.
Tanuj Bagga, Saharsh Jauhari, Kuldeep Singh, Aditya Soni, M. Gireesh
Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Shivam Singh, Yasharth Kant, B.
Karunakaran, M. R. Jothimanian, K. Balu, G. Sanjay, S. Gowthaman,
Nitin Meshram, Sourabh Singh, Rishi Raj Singh, Ranbir Singh Yadav,
Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Sajal
Jain, Sudarshan Rajan, Mahesh Kumar, Ramesh Rawat, Hiten Bajaj,
Rohit Bhardwaj, A. Venkatesh, ADN Rao, Rahul Mishra, Ms. Ananya
Khandelwal, Ms. Sangeetha MR, Ms. Agrimaa Singh, Vishal Gupta,
Dheeresh Kumar Dwivedi, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ms. Upma Shrivastava,
Abhay Kant Mishra, Dinesh P. Rajbhar, Mayank C. L. Gupta, Ms. Anzu
K. Varkey, Uday Gupta, Ms. Shivani M. Lal, Hiren Dasan, M. K. Tripathi,
Harish Dasan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mohan Pandey, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Ms.
Tarini K. Nayak, Somesh Chandra Jha, Upendra Mishra, Vinod Kumar,
Satpal Singh, Anjali Dubey, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Satish Kumar, Sridhar
Potaraju, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Aayush, Abhay
Kumar, Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, Kumar Milind, Shagun Ruhil, Vishal
Nautiyal, Kumar Parimal, Smarhar Singh, Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis,
Rakesh Rathod, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Namit Saxena,
Sudhanshu Chandra, Awnish Maithani, Ms. Arushi Dhawan, P. V. Dinesh,
Vikalp Mudgal, Kshitij Mudgal, Ms. Monica Goel, Nihal Rathore, Satya
Mitra, Ms. K. Saradadevi, R. Vijaynandan Reddy, Naresh Kaushik,
Vardhman Kaushik, Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, B. Purushottama Reddy, Manoj
Joshi, Dhruv Joshi, Satyajit A Desai, Ms. Anagha S Desai, Siddharth
Gautam, Himanshu Sharma, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Shakun Sharma,
Ms. Mary Mitzy, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Damini Thaker, Ms. Mrigna
Shekhar, Brajesh Pandey, Ms. Suchita Dixit, Rajeev Dixit, Anilendra
Pandey, Ashok K Mahajan, Ms. Gauraan, Abhishek Sharma, Rahul
Kumar Sharma, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, K. K. L. Gautam, Chicalwar
Rastrapal, A. K. Suman, Manoj Sharma, Aditya Agarwal, Abhishek
Gurawa, Sandeep Kr. Singh, K. S. Rathod, Ravi Bharuka, Ms. Sarvshree,
Justine George, Ankit Agarwal, Manas Syal, Devashish Bharuka, Sunil
Fernandes, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Prastut Dalvi, Paras Nath Singh, Ms.
Ujjaini Chatterjee, Darpan Sachdeva, Shubham Sharma, Ms. Gyan Mitra,
Vishwa Pal Singh, Brijender Singh Dhull, Vikas Gothwal, Ashish Pandey,
Dr. Pooja Jha, Ms. Nandita Jha, Anil Kumar, Vijay Pal, Varinder Kumar
Sharma, Sushil Karanjkar, Dhawesh Pahuja, K. N. Rai, Gaurav Agarwal,
Shivaji M Jadhav, Anish R Shah, Ms. Qurratulain, Brij Kishor Sah, Aditya
S. Jadhav, Nicholas Chaudhary, M/s S. M. Jadhav and Company, Satya
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS.v. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
Prakash Gautam, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Dr. K. S.
Chauhan, M. Vijaya Bhaskar, Ravi Prakash, Sandeep Malik, Ramesh
Kumar, Ravindra Kumar, Navjot Neelam, Prakash Yadav, Yadav
Narender Singh, Parv Garg, Pawas Kulshrestha, Karandeep Singh Rekhi,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Arvind S. Avhad, Shantanu Krishna, B. Krishna
Prasad, R. C. Kaushik, Samir Ali Khan, B. Sridhar, Kuldip Singh, Mrs.
Anil Katiyar, M. K. Dua, Ravindra Kumar, Gopal Singh, Rahul Kaushik,
Hrishikesh Baruah, Ms. Christi Jain, Arjun Garg, Nikilesh Ramachandran,
Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, M. C. Dhingra, P. N. Puri, Anil Kumar Mishra,
Ranjan Mukherjee, S. N. Bhat, Prashant Bhushan, Sanjeev Malhotra,
Dhananjay Garg, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Respondent-in-person
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. Leave granted (except Diary No.38895/2017).
2. Reservation of 27 per cent in favour of backward classes was
the subject matter of dispute in Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors.1. This Court was of the opinion that Article 16(4) of the
Constitution of India does not provide for reservation in the matter of
promotions. It was clarified that the judgment shall have prospective
operation and shall not affect the promotions already made, whether
made on regular or on any other basis. Reservation provided in the matter
of promotions in the Central services or State services were directed to
be continued for a period of five years from the date of the judgment.
3.