Court case(2018) 10 SCC 396

Several States and the Union were unable to make promotion reservations because High Courts, applying M. Nagaraj, struck down policies that lacked quantifiable data on the backwardness of SCs and STs. The Union argued that Nagaraj was contrary to the nine-judge decision in Indra Sawhney, which had treated SCs and STs as presumptively backward and had confined the creamy layer to OBCs, and sought a reference to a larger Bench.

Nariman J declined a reference to seven judges but modified Nagaraj in one respect: the requirement that the State collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is contrary to Indra Sawhney and is invalid, because their presidential notification under Articles 341 and 342 itself establishes backwardness. The State must still show, by quantifiable data, inadequacy of representation in the cadre and must weigh administrative efficiency under Article 335. The Court upheld the application of the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs in promotion: creamy layer exclusion is a principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16, and applying it does not tinker with the Presidential Lists under Articles 341 and 342. The Court also held that data need not be collected to show backwardness, but the test is whether the group is adequately represented.