Reservation in Promotions : What You Should Understand

Rajyasabha today passed Reservation in Promotions – Constitution (117th Amendment) Bill, 2012. The bill proposes to give reservation to SC/ST for promotions in jobs. It has to be noted that the bill was passed by Rajya Sabha with an overwhelming vote of 206 in the 245-member House (the ruling party, congress doesn’t enjoy majority in Rajysabha, and hence it has to be assumed that all major parties including opposition supported the bill!).

Reservation in Promotion Bill Highlights

  1. Supreme Court held that before framing any law on the issue of Reservation in Promotions (say for SC/ST), the state will have to satisfy the test of; (a) backwardness of the particular SC and ST group; (b) inadequate representation of the said group; and (c) efficiency of administration.
  2. In April 2012, the Supreme Court struck down the UP Government Seniority Rules which provided for reservations in promotions. The court held that the state government had not undertaken any exercise to identify whether there was backwardness and inadequate representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the state government.
  3. In light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, the central government has introduced the present Bill amending the Constitution. The Bill seeks to substitute Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India.
  4. The Bill provides that all the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes notified in the Constitutional shall be deemed to be backward.
  5. Article 335 of the Constitution states that the claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have to be balanced with maintaining efficiency in administration.
  6. The Bill states that provision of the amendment shall override the provision of Article 355.

What you should read between the lines!

  1. This bill is big vote bank politics, and no party will dare to say anything against reservations for any sections of the society fearing loss of their vote in next elections.
  2. Supreme Court of India was not in favour of reservation in promotions, and hence in 1992, the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Sawhney v Union of India had held reservations in promotions to be unconstitutional. But in 1995 central government had amended the Constitution and inserted Article 16(4A), and the ball came back to the court of  SC. The court had to decide if the provision is unconstitutional or not!
  3. In 2006, the Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagraj v Union of India upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment.  While upholding the validity of the amendment,  the court held that before framing any law on this issue, the state will have to satisfy the test of; (a) backwardness of the particular SC and ST group; (b) inadequate representation of the said group; and (c) efficiency of administration.
  4. Though the SC/ST population are not often adequately represented in higher circles of the bureaucracy, the blind application of reservation to all individuals without any checks suggested by  SC will not be a progressive decision. And the constitutional validity of the present amendment is questionable.