Article 335: Navigating Equity & Efficiency

Exploring Claims of SCs & STs to Services & Posts in the Indian Constitution

Begin Exploration

Introduction & Core Principles

Article 335 of the Indian Constitution, titled "Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts," is a crucial provision that mandates the Union and State governments to consider the claims of SCs and STs in appointments to public services. It aims to ensure their adequate representation while explicitly balancing this objective with the "maintenance of efficiency of administration."

Over time, particularly through the 82nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000, and various judicial interpretations, the scope and implications of this article have evolved, forming the constitutional bedrock for reservations in public employment for these historically disadvantaged communities. It is to be read in conjunction with other affirmative action provisions like Article 16(4), 16(4A), and 16(4B).

Core Constitutional Framework

21.4.1: The Original Provision

"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."

  • Mandatory Consideration: "shall be taken into consideration"
  • Scope: Union and State governments.
  • Balancing Clause: "consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration" – a key point of contention.

21.4.2: The Proviso (82nd Amendment, 2000)

"Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."

  • Constitutional Validation: Explicitly allows relaxation of qualifying marks/standards for SCs/STs in promotions.
  • Overcomes Judicial Ruling: Directly counters S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (1996).

Constitutional Goal (DPSP Link)

This provision reflects the Directive Principle enshrined in Article 46, which mandates the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.

Constitutional Basis for Reservations: Interplay

Article 335

General principle of considering SC/ST claims while emphasizing efficiency.

Article 16(4)

Reservations for "backward classes" in Initial Appointments.

Article 16(4A)

Reservations in Promotions (with consequential seniority) for SCs/STs.

Article 16(4B)

Carry forward of unfilled vacancies (not subject to 50% ceiling).

Interplay: Article 335 provides the general principle, while Articles 16(4), 16(4A), and 16(4B) provide the specific enabling provisions and mechanisms for implementing reservations.

Balancing Equity & Efficiency: Judicial Journey

Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India (1992)

Context: Mandal Commission Case

  • Affirmed constitutionality of reservations.
  • Laid down 50% ceiling limit (with exceptions).
  • Introduced "creamy layer" concept for OBCs.
  • Generally held reservations in promotion impermissible (led to 77th Amendment).

S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (1996)

Context: Relaxation of standards

  • Held relaxation of qualifying marks or standards in promotion not permissible.
  • Directly led to the 82nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000.

M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India (2006)

Context: Reservation in promotion for SCs/STs

  • Upheld constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B).
  • Laid down 3 conditions for reservation in promotions:
    1. Backwardness of the class (later clarified).
    2. Inadequacy of Representation (quantifiable data).
    3. Overall Administrative Efficiency (data).

Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (2018)

Context: Reaffirming Nagaraj & Creamy Layer

  • Affirmed M. Nagaraj conditions.
  • Applied "creamy layer" principle to SCs/STs for reservations in promotions.
  • No need to prove "backwardness" of SCs/STs as a class (presumed); data only for "inadequacy of representation" and "administrative efficiency."

Mukesh Kumar & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2020)

Context: Nature of Promotion Reservation Right

  • Reiterated reservation in promotion is NOT a fundamental right.
  • State not bound to provide it, but if it does, it must collect quantifiable data.

Union of India v. B.K. Pavitra (2022)

Context: Recent affirmation of principles

  • Reaffirmed Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh as guiding principles.
  • Indicated holistic review of representation across all grades/cadres.

Summary: Key Cases on SC/ST Reservations

Case Name Year Key Ruling/Implication Relevant Article/Context
Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. UOI 1992 Affirmed 50% ceiling; creamy layer for OBCs; generally no reservations in promotions (led to 77th Amendment). Article 16(4)
S. Vinod Kumar v. UOI 1996 Struck down relaxation of qualifying marks/standards for SC/ST in promotions (led to 82nd Amendment). Article 335 (prior to proviso)
M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. UOI 2006 Upheld 16(4A), 16(4B); imposed 3 conditions for reservation in promotion: backwardness of class, inadequacy of representation (data), overall administrative efficiency (data). Article 16(4A), 16(4B), 335
Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta 2018 Affirmed Nagaraj conditions but clarified: creamy layer applies to SC/ST in promotions; no need to prove backwardness of SC/ST class (presumed); data on 'inadequacy of representation' and 'administrative efficiency' remains. Article 16(4A), 335
Mukesh Kumar & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand 2020 Reiterated reservation in promotion is not a fundamental right; State not bound to provide it; if provided, data for inadequacy and administrative efficiency must be collected. Article 16(4A), 335
Union of India v. B.K. Pavitra 2022 Reaffirmed Nagaraj & Jarnail Singh principles for promotion reservations; emphasized holistic review of representation across grades. Article 16(4A), 335

Dive Deeper: Analytical Notes

Mains-ready Analytical Notes

Major Debates/Discussions

  • Merit vs. Social Justice: The fundamental tension between ensuring adequate representation for historically marginalized groups (social justice/equity) and maintaining the highest possible standards of merit and efficiency in public administration.
  • Pros of Reservations: Addresses historical injustice, ensures diverse perspectives, promotes inclusive governance, fulfills constitutional mandate.
  • Cons/Concerns: Potential for compromising efficiency, creation of "caste in administration," issues of "creamy layer" within reserved categories.

Impact on Administrative Efficiency

  • Argument against: Critics argue relaxation of standards can lead to less efficient bureaucracy.
  • Counter-argument: Representation leads to inclusive policymaking, better understanding of realities, effective governance.

Creamy Layer for SC/ST in Promotions

  • Debate: Contentious application of creamy layer to SC/STs in promotions (Jarnail Singh). Ensures benefits reach truly needy.
  • Implementation Challenge: Defining and identifying 'creamy layer' within SC/STs due to socio-economic complexities and stigma.

Quantifiable Data for Inadequacy of Representation

  • Necessity: SC repeatedly emphasized State's burden to collect robust data before promotion reservation.
  • Practical Hurdles: Meticulous data collection, analysis, and regular updates are significant administrative challenges.

Judicial Activism vs. Legislative Prerogative

  • Frequent judicial interventions lead to debate on judicial overreach. Government often responds with constitutional amendments.

Prelims-ready Notes

  • Article 335: "Claims of SCs & STs to services and posts" – consideration consistent with efficiency of administration.
  • 82nd Amendment Act, 2000: Added a proviso to Article 335, allowing relaxation in qualifying marks/lowering standards for SCs/STs in promotions. Overcame S. Vinod Kumar (1996) judgment.
  • Constitutional Articles for Reservations:
    • Art 16(4): Enabling provision for backward classes (initial appointments).
    • Art 16(4A): Reservations in promotions with consequential seniority for SCs/STs (77th Amendment, 1995; 85th Amendment, 2001).
    • Art 16(4B): Allows carrying forward of backlog vacancies without 50% ceiling (81st Amendment, 2000).
  • Key Supreme Court Judgments (for Prelims):
    • M. Nagaraj (2006): Upheld 16(4A), 16(4B) but mandated 3 conditions for promotion: quantifiable data on (i) backwardness (later struck down for SC/ST), (ii) inadequacy of representation, and (iii) administrative efficiency.
    • Jarnail Singh (2018): Applied "creamy layer" concept to SC/STs in promotions; removed need for data on backwardness of SC/STs as a class.
    • Mukesh Kumar (2020): Reaffirmed reservation in promotion is NOT a fundamental right.

UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Prelims MCQs

UPSC Prelims 2020: Which of the following Constitutional Amendments provided for the relaxation in qualifying marks for SCs/STs in promotional appointments?

  • (a) 77th Amendment Act
  • (b) 81st Amendment Act
  • (c) 82nd Amendment Act
  • (d) 85th Amendment Act

Answer: (c)

UPSC Prelims 2017: The concept of "creamy layer" in reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was introduced by the Supreme Court in which of the following cases?

  • (a) Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India
  • (b) M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India
  • (c) Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta
  • (d) Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India

Answer: (c)

UPSC Prelims 2012: Consider the following statements:

  1. Article 335 of the Constitution provides for reservations in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
  2. The 85th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001, introduced the concept of consequential seniority for SCs/STs in promotion.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • (a) 1 only
  • (b) 2 only
  • (c) Both 1 and 2
  • (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (b)

Mains Questions

UPSC Mains 2019 (GS Paper II): "The reservation policy for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, though effective in bringing social equity, often raises concerns about administrative efficiency." Critically examine this statement in light of Article 335 and relevant judicial pronouncements. (15 marks)

Direction:

  • Introduction: Briefly introduce reservation policy for SC/STs and the dual objectives.
  • Body: Explain Article 335 and its balancing clause. Discuss contributions to social equity vs. concerns about efficiency. Bring in judicial pronouncements (M. Nagaraj, Jarnail Singh) & implementation challenges.
  • Conclusion: Suggest ways to balance both objectives.

UPSC Mains 2017 (GS Paper II): Discuss the salient features of the 82nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000, and its impact on the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts. (10 marks)

Direction:

  • Introduction: Briefly mention Article 335 and the context.
  • Body: Explain content of 82nd Amendment (proviso to Art 335). Discuss reason (overcoming S. Vinod Kumar). Explain direct impact (relaxation of marks/standards). Broad impact on representation.
  • Conclusion: Summarize significance.

UPSC Mains 2014 (GS Paper II): With reference to the provisions of the Indian Constitution, discuss how the Indian State has tried to address the issue of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services. Also, critically analyze the challenges faced in achieving this objective. (15 marks)

Direction:

  • Introduction: Constitutional commitment to social justice.
  • Body: Constitutional Provisions (16(4), 4A, 4B, 335). Mechanisms (reservations, carry-forward, relaxation). Challenges (judicial overlays, data, creamy layer, efficiency, implementation gaps, qualitative representation).
  • Conclusion: Suggest reforms for effective implementation.

Current Context & Beyond

Recent Developments

  • Supreme Court's Stance (Jan 2022): Reaffirmed Nagaraj & Jarnail Singh principles for promotion reservations. Left determination of 'inadequacy of representation' to States (subject to review), but reiterated no data needed for backwardness of SC/ST class.
  • Union Government's Committee: A.K. Bhardwaj Committee formed to devise methods for assessing inadequacy of representation.
  • Ongoing State-Level Litigations: Many states (e.g., UP, Karnataka, Punjab) face challenges over promotion policies due to data issues or creamy layer non-adherence.

Value-added Insights

  • DPSP Link: Article 46 is the guiding principle behind affirmative action for SCs/STs.
  • National Commissions: NCSC (Art. 338) and NCST (Art. 338A) monitor safeguards and address grievances related to reservations.
  • Global Context: Affirmative action policies exist worldwide (e.g., USA, South Africa, Malaysia) addressing historical disadvantages.
  • Impact: Ensures inclusive governance, social mobility, and contributes to diverse bureaucracy.