Kanhaiya Lal Aggarwal v. Union of India 2002

M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006, a leading case which laid the basic foundation of the Constitution because it gives solid remarks over Fundamental right.


M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006

M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006
M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006

INTRODUCTION of the case M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006

M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006 – This Case has a very important significant in the fundamental right, which laid the foundation of Constitution, it was highlighted through M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006

In Indian democracy, reservation has invariably been a sensitive nevertheless explosive topic. One cluster claim that it’s suffered numerous sufferings since the dawn of our time and deserves some style of compensation. Another facet, on the opposite hand, maintains that Asian country may be a liberal and lay society wherever most are treated equally.
If anyone cluster receives additional edges, they decision it discriminatory.
However, an equivalent Constitution has provisions for reserve seats altogether sectors of life, together with education, government jobs, the judiciary, and so on. The Honorable Indian Supreme court has expressed its views on this issue in a very variety of rulings. These selections illustrate the judiciary’s behavior in similar things. [ M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006 ]
The case of M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006, wherever the thought of reservation in promotion in government agencies was questioned on the idea of the rules on that it absolutely was primarily based, making an attempt to assert such policies to be discriminative and bootleg in nature, is one such vital call that has been a landmark within the field of reservation. the decision was condemned for being ultra-vires and for violating the law of equity and also the Nagaraj case rules.

Reservation in our country refers to the practice of taking individuals access to government employment, instructional establishments, and even legislatures. It’s generally observed as social action or positive discrimination.

Development of socially and educationally backward teams and acceptable participation of any backwards section of the community and economically backward teams below any service square measure the 2 basic goals of providing reservation below the Indian Constitution. Reservation is one in every of the techniques accustomed combat social oppression and discrimination against specific teams.

Nagaraj’s critics aforesaid that a five-judge panel wrong and implicitly unnoticed a nine-judge bench ruling in Indra Sawhney, that plainly explicit that SCs and STs square measure undiversified and can’t be divided.

In Indra Sawhney Case[1]

The Apex Court’s Constitutional Bench of 9 members dominated that below Article 16(4), the backward category of voters is often recognized supported class structure instead of simply economic factors. Article 16(4) isn’t associate exception to the final rule (1). this is often associate example of classification. Article sixteen permits for reservations (1).
Backward categories in Article 16(4) weren’t an equivalent as those in Article 15(4) United Nations agency were socially and educationally backward. The backward categories should not embody the creamy layer. Backward categories are often classified into backward and additional backward categories below Article 16(4).
A backward category of voters cannot be established only on the idea of economic grounds. Reservations mustn’t exceed five hundredth. the chief Order are often accustomed create reservations. Promotion doesn’t embody any reservations. Permanent statutory authority charged with work complaints of over- or under-inclusion. the bulk felt there was no having to be compelled to voice a read on the Mandal Commission’s exercise being correct or adequate. solely the Supreme Court will resolve disagreements concerning new criteria.


The data within the current plea, that is that the lead grievance, square measure that the Petitioners had already invoked Article thirty-two of the Constitution for simply a writ of certiorari} writ to nullify the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, that retrospectively inserts Article 16(4A) of the Indian Constitution, giving reservation in promotion to vital seniority, as simply being inconsistent with the constitution and violating the essential structure. 
The challenged modification, as per the petitioners, overturns this Court’s selections within the cases of Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, Ajit Singh Januja et al. v. State of Punjab, and Indra Sawhney v. UoI.

According to the appellants, the legislative assembly has concerned legal functions itself associated had additionally functioned as an adjudicating body by overturning the judicial statements of this Court through the utilization of the ability of modification, as dead by the infringed modification, and is therefore in violation of the Constitution’s basic structure.  

As a result, the aforesaid modification is unconstitutional and certain to be turned. The modification additionally tries to basically alter right to equality, that is a component of the Constitution’s essential structure, in step with petitioners.

According to the petitioners, equality within the sense of Article 16(1) means that “rapid promotion,” not “consequential seniority.” in step with the petitioners, within the matter of Indra Sawhney determined by this Court declared that below Article 16(4), reserving to the backward categories is allowable solely throughout initial accomplishment and not throughout promotion.
Petitioners claim that, in violation of the ruling, Parliament passed the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act of 1995. Article 16(4A) was enclosed by the same modification, reintroducing reservation in promotion. The petitioners claim that granting accelerated seniority to roster-point promotes can have devastating repercussions.

By the amount he reaches the age of forty-five, a roster-point promote within the graduate stream can have advanced to the fourth level. {
M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006}
He would reach the best level at the age of {49|forty 9} and keep somewhere for nine years. the final advantage promote, on the opposite hand, would reach the third level out of six at the age of fifty-six, and by the time he became eligible for the fourth level, he would’ve have retired from employment. in step with petitioners, the consequences of the challenged eighty fifth modification, that provides for reservation in promotion with attendant seniority, would lead to discriminatory treatment within the quantitative relation of reserved class officers in higher tier positions.
The issue arises for the connection, understanding, and application of-
the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995
the Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act, 2000
the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001

Issues in M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006

Is it true that the actions performed in response to the Supreme Court’s judgment in problems with promotions and its implementation with retrospective effect?
Whether authority of general assembly has been enlarged to the purpose wherever any together with all of the constitutional restrictions are eliminated as a result of the challenged changes to the constitution?
Is equity and equality part of the constitution’s elementary characteristics or basic structure or otherwise?


According to the appellants’ arguments, equality could be a a part of the fundamental structure in keeping with article fourteen of Constitution of Asian nation and it’s not possible to think about the Constitution while not fairness mutually of its central parts.
Appellants additionally argue that Article sixteen is crucial to equality, which it should be scan in accordance with Article fourteen similarly as several half IV articles.
As per the appellants, the Constitution places nice price on public sector employment and therefore the law of equality, as Article sixteen provides a particular assurance safeguarding employment equity.
It is argued that if the elemental leveling of equality in terms of potency is interrupted, and therefore the individual right is infringed upon with excess support for cluster expectations, this may cause reversed discrimination.
Upon this issue of amending and sterilization power, it’s argued that Parliament cannot increase its modification jurisdiction so as to get the power to repeal the Constitution, which if the breadth of the alteration encourages removal of the fundamental structure, such modification would fail.
There is so a distinction between quota limitations and most or thresh hold permissible reservation restrictions.
It is planned that the equality of chance publicly employment be outlined in many cases, notably Indra Sawhney, so as to line up and balance Articles 16(1) and 16(4). It is urged that Articles fourteen and sixteen should be scan in reference to Article 335 as issued; that the contested revisions violate the twin ideals of potency, merit, and public service morale, similarly because the cornerstone of excellent governance. it’s powerfully suggested that the contested revisions presumably permit to divisiveness, discord, and dissolution.


On the part of the respondents, the assertion was created that the authority of modification could be a ‘constituent’ power instead of a ‘constituted power,’ which suggests there are not any tacit restrictions on the Legislature’s authority once seeking to amend the Constitution, however it doesn’t violate, interfere with, or weaken the fundamental structure. It is additionally argued that revisions to present impact to the guiding principles should not violate the Constitution’s core structure. it’s argued that the equality represented in Articles fourteen and sixteen shouldn’t be confused with the equality that’s an elementary part of the Constitution.

It is argued that this approach of leveling public and reserve privileges within the interpretation of Article sixteen has no affiliation to the Constitution’s basic options, that embody elementary principles like constitutional ascendency, democracy, secularism, separation of powers, etc.

It has been argued that jurisprudence dealing to public services isn’t a elementary part of the Constitution, which the proper to thought for advancement in commission issues isn’t a elementary characteristic. It is argued that the challenged modifications unbroken reservations at the recruiting level in resistance of the Indra Sawhney ruling, however the main focus was on Backward categories instead of SCs/STs, then there was no balance of rights of 3 classes. As a result, it’s argued that reservation is restricted below Article 16(4A).

It was additional argued that if it’s legal to create reservations at higher levels through direct enlisting and might even be in deep trouble promotion whereas keeping in mind the authority of Article 335, as Court has taken care of the final category’s interests by limiting vacancy filling to a most of fifty for reservation. Finally, it had been contended that Article 16(4B) relates to reservations below Article 16(4) that area unit deemed to be among acceptable limitations, which if the reserve is excessive, it should be invalid. As a result, the facultative authority granted by Article 16(4B) cannot be null and void. [6]


The Bench dominated that the challenged legal amendments on the constitution adscititious Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) from Article 16(4). they create no changes to the framework of Article 16(4). They preserve the governing criteria or crucial factors, namely, slowness and insufficiency of participation, that permits states to supply for reservation whereas keeping the overall potency of state administration in mind below Article 335.

These challenged amendments solely apply to SCs and STs. they are doing not nullify any constitutional obligations, as well as the fifty % ceiling, the notion of the creamy layer, the sub-classification of OBCs and SCs/STs as control within the Indra Sawhney case, and therefore the plan of a post-based listing with Associate in Nursing in-built plan of substitute as control in R.K. Sabharwal.

Affirming that the five hundred thresholds, the creamy layer plan, and therefore the convincing reasons, as well as slowness, insufficiency of illustration, and general administration potency, area unit all constitutional conditions while not that the system of civil rights below Article sixteen can fail. Before establishing provision for reservation, the Bench terminated that the involved State should demonstrate the existence of compelling factors, as well as slowness, lack of participation, and overall body effectiveness, in every case.

The hon’ble Bench additional aforesaid that the challenged clause is simply Associate in Nursing facultative provision, and therefore the Government isn’t needed to impose reservations for SC/ST in promotions. However, if they want to use their discretion and establish such a provision, the State should collect quantitative facts demonstrating the class’s slowness and insufficiency of illustration publicly employment, additionally to compliant with Article 335.

The Bench dominated that although the State has sturdy grounds, as delineate higher than, the State should make sure that its reservations law doesn’t result to immoderation, destructive the creamy layer, or extending the reservation forever.

It was aforesaid that the state should submit verification of the underdevelopment of the category taking advantage of the reservation, lean representative within the role that the reserve in promotion is to be granted, and the way reservation in promotions can promote body potency. The Court Affirmed the constitutionality of the challenged constitutional changes.

According to the revered court, social justice worries with the allocation of benefits and obligations. The region of conflict between rights, needs, and means that is the idea for distribution. These 3 needs could be classified as “formal equality” or “proportional equality,” with formal equality implying that the law treats everybody equally.[12]


The Supreme Court issued its call within the current case, upholding Parliament’s action to broaden reservation for SCs and STs to additionally embrace promotional offers with 3 riders. The ruling during this case, in my opinion can offer important impact within the development of weaker section of the society. The laws that are created to supply reservation in promotions will certainly encourage SC’s or ST’s to participate in work additional expeditiously, however in brief term method.

Because i believe it quickly gave rise to issues that it fails to spot that the SCs and STs remained to face centuries of discriminatory by compelling the state to review their underdevelopment within the context of quotas in promotions. although a number of them don’t meet the necessities for slowness, lean presence in services, or potency, refrain their non-membership within the creamy layer class inside the SCs and STs.


M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006 – this case has given multiple remarkable points in the history of the constitution.

The Constitution of India, 1950 –
Article fourteen – The State shall not deny to someone equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws among the territory of India. [M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006]

Article 16(4A) – Nothing during this article shall forestall the State from creating any provision for reservation 3[in matters of promotion, with important seniority, to any class] or categories of posts within the services below the State in favor of the regular Castes and therefore the regular Tribes that, within the opinion of the State, don’t seem to be adequately delineated within the services below the State.

Article 16(4B) – While study the case of M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006, Nothing during this article shall forestall the State from considering any empty vacancies of a year that area unit reserved for being crammed up therein year in accordance with any provision for reservation created below clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate category of vacancies to be crammed up in any succeeding year or years and such category of vacancies shall not be thought of at the side of the vacancies of the year within which they’re being crammed up for deciding the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total range of vacancies of that year

Article 335 – The claims of the members of the regular Castes and therefore the regular Tribes shall be taken into thought, systematically with the upkeep of potency of administration, within the creating of appointments to services and posts in reference to the affairs of the Union or of a State.


M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006-

If you like the article, please comment.

M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006


M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006

M. NAGARAJ vs. UOI 2006




Also read

Triple Talaq Case | Shayara Bano vs Union of India 2017


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *