Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta
“Creamy Layer Exclusion Applies to SC/ST Reservations in Promotions”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that the creamy layer principle applies to SC/ST reservations in promotions. While SC/STs do not need to prove backwardness for reservation benefits, the more affluent among them (creamy layer) can be excluded from reservation in promotions. The judgment also clarified that States must collect quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation before providing reservation in promotions.
The Bottom Line
While SC/ST communities do not need to prove backwardness for reservation in promotions, the economically and socially advanced among them (creamy layer) can be excluded. States must have data showing inadequacy of representation before giving reservation in promotions.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Article 16(4-A) Introduced
Constitutional amendment enabling reservation in promotions for SC/STs
Article 16(4-A) Introduced
Constitutional amendment enabling reservation in promotions for SC/STs
M. Nagaraj Judgment
Supreme Court upheld reservation in promotions subject to three conditions
M. Nagaraj Judgment
Supreme Court upheld reservation in promotions subject to three conditions
Jarnail Singh (First Judgment)
Five-judge bench modified Nagaraj, applied creamy layer to SC/STs
Jarnail Singh (First Judgment)
Five-judge bench modified Nagaraj, applied creamy layer to SC/STs
Final Judgment
Court settled six key issues regarding implementation of reservation in promotions
Final Judgment
Court settled six key issues regarding implementation of reservation in promotions
The Story
This case arose from a batch of writ petitions challenging reservation in promotions for SC/STs in various State governments and the Central Government.
The primary question was whether the 2006 M. Nagaraj judgment (which upheld reservation in promotions subject to certain conditions) needed reconsideration. Nagaraj had imposed three conditions for reservation in promotions: (1) collection of quantifiable data showing backwardness, (2) inadequacy of representation, and (3) overall efficiency of administration.
In 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench in Jarnail Singh partially modified Nagaraj by holding that SC/STs do not need to demonstrate backwardness for reservation in promotions (as they are already presumed backward by virtue of constitutional recognition). However, the Court introduced a new requirement - that the creamy layer among SC/STs should be excluded from reservation in promotions.
The 2022 judgment addressed implementation issues arising from the 2018 judgment, particularly regarding collection of quantifiable data for inadequacy of representation and the prospective application of the Nagaraj principles.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Creamy layer should apply to SC/STs
The petitioners argued that the benefits of reservation are being cornered by the affluent sections within SC/STs, defeating the purpose of affirmative action.
Quantifiable data essential
States cannot simply assume inadequacy of representation without empirical data showing the same.
Efficiency must be considered
Reservation in promotions should not compromise administrative efficiency as mandated by Article 335.
Respondent
State of Haryana
SC/STs are homogeneous
SC/STs suffer from social stigma of caste, which economic advancement cannot erase. Creamy layer concept should not apply.
Historical injustice
Centuries of discrimination justify continued reservation without additional conditions.
Presidential list is sacrosanct
The inclusion in the Presidential list is sufficient proof of backwardness; no additional data should be required.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court attempted to balance the competing interests of ensuring effective affirmative action for SC/STs while preventing its benefits from being monopolized by the affluent sections. The application of creamy layer to SC/STs was controversial but the Court justified it on the grounds of ensuring intra-group equality.
The benefits of reservation in promotions should reach the truly disadvantaged sections within the SC/ST communities, not those who have already progressed economically and socially.
Justifies the application of creamy layer to SC/STs.
Collection of quantifiable data regarding backwardness of SCs and STs is no more required in view of the judgment in Jarnail Singh.
Relaxes one of the Nagaraj conditions for SC/STs.
The judgment of M. Nagaraj should be declared to have prospective effect to prevent unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time.
Protects existing service careers from disruption.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The Court provided clarity on implementation of reservation in promotions while balancing various competing interests.
Directions Issued
- Creamy layer exclusion applies to SC/STs for reservation in promotions
- SC/STs need not prove backwardness separately
- States must collect cadre-specific data on inadequacy of representation
- Nagaraj principles apply prospectively from 2006
- Existing promotions and seniority are protected
Key Legal Principles Established
Creamy layer principle applies to SC/ST reservations in promotions.
SC/STs do not need to prove backwardness for reservation in promotions.
States must collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation before providing reservation in promotions.
Data must be cadre-specific, not general.
Nagaraj principles apply prospectively from 2006.
Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are enabling provisions, not mandatory.
Reservation in promotions must not affect overall administrative efficiency under Article 335.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you belong to SC/ST and have achieved economic prosperity, you may be excluded from reservation in promotions (creamy layer).
- SC/STs do not need to prove they are backward to get reservation in promotions.
- The State government must have data showing your community is underrepresented in that particular job level.
- Existing promotions and seniority are protected and will not be disturbed.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 16(4-A)
Constitution of India
“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.”
Relevance: Enables reservation in promotions for SC/STs.
Article 335
Constitution of India
“The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.”
Relevance: Balances reservation with administrative efficiency.
Related Cases & Precedents
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India
cited(2006) 8 SCC 212
Upheld validity of Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) subject to three conditions including collection of quantifiable data.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
cited(1992) Supp 3 SCC 217
Nine-judge bench judgment that introduced the creamy layer concept for OBCs.
E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.
cited(2005) 1 SCC 394
Held that SC/STs form a homogeneous class. Later overruled in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024).
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.