Published on: 10th October 2025
Authored by: Nyasha Kaushik
SKJ LAW COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR
Court : Supreme Court of India
Bench Constitution Bench comprising : Y.K. Sabharwal (CJI), C.K. Thakker, S.H. Kapadia, B.N. Srikrishna, and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Date of Judgment : October 19, 2006
Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 15, 16, 16(4A), 16(4B), and 335
- The Constitution (77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments)
- Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
- Doctrine of Basic Structure
Brief Facts :
This case concerns the constitutional legitimacy of four amendments to the Constitution enacted between 1995 and 2001, specifically:
77th Amendment (1995): Introduced Article 16(4A) to facilitate reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
81st Amendment (2000): Permitted the carryover of unfilled SC/ST vacancies in promotions beyond the 50% limit.
82nd Amendment (2000): Allowed for the relaxation of qualifying marks and evaluation criteria for SCs/STs in promotions.
85th Amendment (2001): Granted consequential seniority for SC/STs in promotions.
These amendments were contested on the basis that they infringed upon the Basic Structure of the Constitution, particularly concerning equality (Article 14) and merit-based governance (Article 16(1)).
The petitioners (including M. Nagaraj) argued that these amendments, by permitting indiscriminate promotions and seniority advantages to SCs/STs without adequate justification, compromised meritocracy and fairness in public employment.
Arguments :
Petitioners’ Arguments
The amendments undermine the principle of equality as stated in Article 14 and the merit principle outlined in Article 16(1).[1]
The Indra Sawhney[2] judgment explicitly determined that reservations in promotions are not permissible, and these amendments effectively invalidate a judicial ruling.
The amendments permit unrestricted reservations, lacking any measurable evidence concerning backwardness or under-representation.
The principle of administrative efficiency as per Article 335[3] is jeopardized by the provision of consequential seniority
The fundamental structure, particularly the principles of equality and judicial review, is infringed upon.
The amendments disrupted the equilibrium between equality and group expectations, resulting in reverse discrimination.
The petitioners argued that the amendments compromised the fundamental framework of the Constitution, especially the tenets of efficiency, merit, and the morale of public service.
The petitioners asserted that these changes could foster division and harm the core principles of effective governance.
They maintained that any amendment that infringes upon the basic structure would be deemed unconstitutional.
Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India & State Governments)
Parliament possesses the authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368[4], and these amendments were introduced to promote social justice.
The amendments do not contravene the basic structure; they merely offer enabling provisions—implementation necessitates state action, which is subject to challenge.
The amendments align with the Directive Principles (notably Article 46) that advocate for the welfare of SCs/STs[5].
These amendments simply reinstate what was historically denied to SCs/STs and are not absolute in nature.
In the Indian context, equality encompasses “substantive equality,” rather than merely formal equality.
The Respondents asserted that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is a constituent power. There are no implied limitations on the Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution, provided that such amendments do not compromise its fundamental structure.
The Respondents argued that the principle of equality in Article 14 and Article 16[6] pertains to fairness in public services, but it does not imply absolute equality of outcomes. They contended that the amendments did not infringe upon fundamental equality; rather, they sought to enhance fairness and representation.
The Respondents highlighted that the amendments were consistent with the Indra Sawhney [7]case.
The Respondents maintained that the provisions for reservations in promotions under Article 16(4A) and 16(4B)[8] are warranted to ensure sufficient representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Judgment :
The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional validity of all four amendments while establishing specific conditions for their implementation:
Reservation in promotion is allowed, but it is not automatic. The State is required to:
Gather quantifiable data that demonstrates the backwardness of the class.
Establish the inadequacy of representation in public employment.
Show that reservation will not compromise administrative efficiency (Article 335).
These are prerequisites that must be satisfied prior to granting promotions under Article 16(4A).
The Court highlighted that the basic structure remains intact with the amendments, provided these conditions are adhered to.
The amendments serve as enabling provisions, indicating that states have the option to implement them, but they must adhere to constitutional safeguards.
The Court clearly indicated that these amendments do not invalidate the ratio established in Indra Sawhney[9], as that case addressed the lack of a constitutional provision for promotion—which has now been amended.
The Supreme Court, affirmed the constitutionality of amendments concerning reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The Court determined that these amendments do not infringe upon the fundamental structure of equality as outlined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. It clarified that the amendments serve as enabling provisions, permitting but not obligating States to implement reservations in promotions for SCs and STs, contingent upon their identification of backwardness, insufficient representation, and the assurance of overall administrative efficiency.
Furthermore, the Court mandated that States must gather quantifiable data to substantiate reservations in accordance with constitutional stipulations, which include the 50% ceiling limit, the concept of the creamy layer, and the prevention of indefinite extensions of reservations. It emphasized that even in the presence of compelling reasons for reservations, such provisions must not become excessive or violate constitutional boundaries.
Additionally, the Court validated the catch-up rule, which permits a candidate from a reserved category to be promoted ahead of their senior general category counterparts in the feeder grade, despite remaining junior in the promoted category. It ruled that the catch-up rule and the resulting seniority fall within the amending authority of Parliament.
Moreover, the Court upheld the constitutional legitimacy of Article 16(4B), which allows for the carry-forward of unfilled vacancies reserved for SCs/STs to subsequent years, distinct from vacancies of the current year. The Court observed that by removing the 50% ceiling on carry-forward vacancies under Article 16(4B), while maintaining the ceiling for current vacancies, a temporal factor is introduced. States will now be required to implement a time-cap for carrying forward unfilled vacancies, based on the specific circumstances, to ensure administrative efficiency.
The carry-forward rule and the provisions for consequential seniority were also upheld, contingent upon the same criteria. The Court underscored that even in the case of carrying forward unfilled vacancies, States must provide compelling justifications related to backwardness, inadequate representation, and compliance.
Ratio Decidendi :
The Parliament has the authority to enact enabling provisions for the reservation of promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) as outlined in Articles 16(4A), 16(4B), etc., without infringing upon the fundamental structure, provided that:
The State gathers measurable data regarding backwardness and underrepresentation,
Ensures that administrative efficiency remains intact, and
Implements the reservation in a manner that aligns with the constitutional principles of equality and fairness.
The ruling emphasizes the necessity of balancing substantive equality (social justice) with formal equality (merit and efficiency).
Final Decision :
The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional legitimacy of the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments.
Nevertheless, the Court imposed constitutional constraints on the implementation of these amendments:
Promotions must be based on data-driven reservations.
The principles of the “catch-up rule” and “consequential seniority” must not lead to reverse discrimination.
States are required to adhere to the three-pronged test (backwardness, inadequacy of representation, administrative efficiency) prior to granting reservations in promotions.
Consequently, the Union of India and the States prevailed in the case, albeit with stringent conditions established for the application of these provisions.
Impact of the Case :
Reaffirmed Basic Structure Doctrine: The ruling confirmed that constitutional amendments remain valid as long as they do not modify the basic structure, thereby strengthening the principle of judicial review.
Defined Limits of Reservation: It was clarified that reservations in promotions are not absolute and can only be granted upon meeting specific constitutional requirements.
Balanced Equality and Social Justice: The Court highlighted the importance of substantive equality, indicating that equity measures (such as reservations) must be consistent with merit and efficiency in governance.
Guided Future Reservation Policies: This judgment became a benchmark for evaluating the legality of state policies concerning reservations in promotions, resulting in further litigation and discussions.
Encouraged Data Collection: States were now required to collect quantifiable data regarding backwardness and under-representation, thereby making reservation policies more grounded in evidence.
Continuing Legal Evolution: The M. Nagaraj case was revisited in subsequent rulings, such as Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)[10], where the Court deemed the backwardness requirement unnecessary for SCs/STs, thus further advancing the doctrine.
Administrative Consequences: The ruling had significant implications for thousands of service personnel nationwide, particularly in states like Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, where reservations in promotions had been vigorously enforced.
Directive for Legislative and Executive Prudence: It acted as a caution to legislatures against overreaching in the name of social justice without adhering to constitutional due process.
Conclusion :
The M. Nagaraj v. Union of India[11] case represents a pivotal judgment that lies at the intersection of affirmative action and constitutional boundaries. While it affirmed Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution to enable reservations in promotions for SCs/STs, it also stressed the importance of maintaining the basic structure of the Constitution, also reaffirming the fundamental constitutional boundaries and protections that regulate the manner in which States may exercise this authority
The decision exemplifies a careful balance of competing constitutional principles; equality, social justice, and administrative efficiency. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments that allow for reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Â
[1] India Const. art. 14, 16, cl. 1
[2] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992, AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 477, 1992 AIR SCW 3682
[3] India Const. art. 335
[4] India Const. art. 368
[5] India Const. art. 46
[6] India Const. art. 14 , 16
[7] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992, AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 477, 1992 AIR SCW 3682
[8] India Const. art. 16, cl. 4 (A) & (B)
[9] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992, AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 477, 1992 AIR SCW 3682
[10] Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4729
[11] M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212; AIR 2007 SC 71