| The Bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal emphasised that the ceiling of 50 per cent, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons like backwardness, inadequacy of representations and overall administrative efficiency were all constitutional requirements without which the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity would collapse. |
| While making reservations, the concerned state government will have to show in each case the existence of the above-mentioned compelling reasons. |
| The states are not bound to make reservations for SC and ST categories in the matter of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, they have to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment. |
| However, the unanimous judgment made it clear that even if the state has compelling reasons, it shall not exceed the 50 per cent limit or extend the reservation indefinitely. It also made it clear that the carry forward/backlog of vacancies in terms of the equality provision in Article 16(4B) could not be continued indefinitely. |
| The court was dealing with a number of writ petitions challenging the validity of 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th constitutional amendments made between 1995 and 2001. They had challenged various state laws providing for reservations. |
| The Supreme Court did not go into such individual state laws, but only laid down general rules. The validity of the individual laws will be examined by different smaller benches of the court following the principles laid down today. |
| The two important questions before the court were whether the width of the amendment abrogates the basic structure of the Constitution and balancing and structuring of equality in employment under Article 16. |
Top Section
Explore Business Standard