<Reservation in Promotion: October 5>
Today, the SC will hear a group of 130 petitions concerning the implementation of the Court's decision in M Nagraj v Union of India (2006).
In M Nagraj, the Court held that SC/STs can be granted reservations in promotion.
(1/n)
Today, the SC will hear a group of 130 petitions concerning the implementation of the Court's decision in M Nagraj v Union of India (2006).
In M Nagraj, the Court held that SC/STs can be granted reservations in promotion.
(1/n)
The Court partially upheld the Nagraj judgment in Jarnail Singh (2018). It struck down the requirement for States to demonstrate backwardness when granting reservation in promotion.
It also introduced the idea of creamy layer exclusion.
Read more -scobserver.in/court-case/res…
2/n
It also introduced the idea of creamy layer exclusion.
Read more -scobserver.in/court-case/res…
2/n
In the present petitions, the Court had previously ordered all parties to appraise the Attorney General about their issues with the policy. The AG was directed to consolidate these issues for the Court's deliberation.
Follow today's hearing
scobserver.in/court-case/res…
3/n
Follow today's hearing
scobserver.in/court-case/res…
3/n
Attorney General Venugopal reviewed the case law on reservations in promotions beginning with Nagraj
He noted that one of the conditions for providing such reservations was to prove that SCs/STs were inadequately represented in the department.
4/n
He noted that one of the conditions for providing such reservations was to prove that SCs/STs were inadequately represented in the department.
4/n
AG said that 'yardstick' for data on representation was not clear.
He suggested using a 'roster' system to determine how posts would be reserved.
5/n
#Reservation #SupremeCourt
He suggested using a 'roster' system to determine how posts would be reserved.
5/n
#Reservation #SupremeCourt
AG also argued that the criteria for maintaining efficiency in administration, as required by M Nagaraj (2006), needs to be settled by the Court.
AG then stated that the Court must clarify if M Nagaraj will have retrospective application.
6/n
#reservation #SupremeCourt
AG then stated that the Court must clarify if M Nagaraj will have retrospective application.
6/n
#reservation #SupremeCourt
AG stated that High Courts have been interpreting Nagaraj retrospectively. He gave the example of Delhi High Court's 2017 order quashing appointments in pursuance of a 1997 Office Memorandum. He argued that thousands will lose pension because of this.
7/n
#SCO #Reservation
7/n
#SCO #Reservation
Bench asked whether the Union has taken any steps to collect data to prove under -representation since Nagaraj (2006).
Khanna J stated that there must be a quantifiable basis for continuing reservations in promotion.
8/n
#SupremeCourt #Reservation
Khanna J stated that there must be a quantifiable basis for continuing reservations in promotion.
8/n
#SupremeCourt #Reservation
AG and ASG Balbir Singh responded by saying they will seek instructions from the Union on this.
Matter will be heard tomorrow (5/10) .
9/n
#SupremeCourt #Reservation
Matter will be heard tomorrow (5/10) .
9/n
#SupremeCourt #Reservation
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
