<p>A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will, from August 3, examine whether the 2006 M Nagaraj judgement has to be reconsidered.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The verdict by a five-judge bench had then put conditions like backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall efficiency for reservation in promotion for SC/ST employees. It also ruled that the principle of creamy layer would not apply in the case of SC/STs.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu Malhotra will consider the reference to examine if there was a need to revisit the 12-year-old landmark judgement, delivered on a petition by Nagaraj, a resident of Bengaluru.</p>.<p>The Constitution bench’s proceedings will be keenly watched in Karnataka as well, since the issue of promotion to SC/ST employees hanged in balance after a two-judge bench on February 9, 2017, quashed the 2002 state law, relying upon the Nagaraj principle, and directed the state to take consequential actions of reversion and promotion.</p>.<p>The Karnataka government subsequently passed a fresh law to protect the affected employees from the oppressed community.</p>.<p>The issue involved “further and finer interpretation on the application of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution (reservation in promotion to the SCs/STs, if not adequately represented)”. Questions were also raised about application of the principle of creamy layer in situations of competing claims within the same races, communities, groups or parts of SC/ST notified by the President under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.</p>.<p>It was argued that the test of backwardness cannot be applied in the case of SCs/STs in view of the apex court’s judgements in Indira Sawhney (Mandal Commission, 1992) and Chinnaiah (2005) cases.</p>.<p>On November 15 last, a three-judge bench referred the matter relating to re-examination of the apex court’s 2006 landmark judgement to the Constitution bench, after the issue was raised in cases arising out of Tripura and Maharashtra.</p>.<p>On June 5, a vacation bench said the Union government was not debarred from making promotion in “accordance with law”, on a contention by the Centre that advancement of SC/ST employees was held up due to previous orders.</p>
<p>A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will, from August 3, examine whether the 2006 M Nagaraj judgement has to be reconsidered.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The verdict by a five-judge bench had then put conditions like backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall efficiency for reservation in promotion for SC/ST employees. It also ruled that the principle of creamy layer would not apply in the case of SC/STs.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu Malhotra will consider the reference to examine if there was a need to revisit the 12-year-old landmark judgement, delivered on a petition by Nagaraj, a resident of Bengaluru.</p>.<p>The Constitution bench’s proceedings will be keenly watched in Karnataka as well, since the issue of promotion to SC/ST employees hanged in balance after a two-judge bench on February 9, 2017, quashed the 2002 state law, relying upon the Nagaraj principle, and directed the state to take consequential actions of reversion and promotion.</p>.<p>The Karnataka government subsequently passed a fresh law to protect the affected employees from the oppressed community.</p>.<p>The issue involved “further and finer interpretation on the application of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution (reservation in promotion to the SCs/STs, if not adequately represented)”. Questions were also raised about application of the principle of creamy layer in situations of competing claims within the same races, communities, groups or parts of SC/ST notified by the President under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.</p>.<p>It was argued that the test of backwardness cannot be applied in the case of SCs/STs in view of the apex court’s judgements in Indira Sawhney (Mandal Commission, 1992) and Chinnaiah (2005) cases.</p>.<p>On November 15 last, a three-judge bench referred the matter relating to re-examination of the apex court’s 2006 landmark judgement to the Constitution bench, after the issue was raised in cases arising out of Tripura and Maharashtra.</p>.<p>On June 5, a vacation bench said the Union government was not debarred from making promotion in “accordance with law”, on a contention by the Centre that advancement of SC/ST employees was held up due to previous orders.</p>
