B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India (2019)

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court upheld Karnataka’s 2018 Reservation Act. The Act gives consequential seniority to SC/ST employees who got promotion by reservation. The State first lost in Pavitra (I) because there was no proper data. It then formed the Ratna Prabha Committee, collected data, and passed a new law. The Court said the new law cured the defects. Efficiency under Article 335 means inclusive and fair administration, not only test scores.

Issues

• Is the Karnataka 2018 Act on consequential seniority constitutionally valid?
• Can a new Act with similar provisions survive if it cures the reasons for which the earlier Act was struck down?
• Does the Act satisfy Article 335’s “efficiency of administration” test?
• Does the creamy layer test apply to seniority granted as a consequence of promotion?

Rules

• Article 16(4A): State may give reservation in promotion to SC/ST if data shows inadequate representation and if administration stays efficient.
• Article 335: Balance claims of SC/ST with efficiency. Efficiency includes inclusion and equal opportunity.
• Legislative Response to Judgments: A new law is valid if it removes the basis of an earlier decision instead of overruling the Court.

Arguments

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the 2018 Act. The Court held that Karnataka removed the basis of the earlier strike-down by gathering and using quantifiable data. Retrospective seniority was allowed. The Court approved the Ratna Prabha Committee’s approach and said it fit the constitutional scheme. The creamy layer idea does not apply to consequential seniority. Efficiency is not reduced by inclusion; it is strengthened.

Ratio Decidendi

• When a State supplies data on representation and efficiency, Article 16(4A) permits reservation in promotion with consequential seniority.
• A curative statute that removes the legal defect is valid even if it looks similar to the old law.
• Article 335’s efficiency includes inclusion and equal opportunity, not a narrow score-centric view.

Why It Matters

• Clarifies how States can legally design reservation in promotion with proper data.
• Defines “efficiency” as inclusive and service-oriented.
• Explains how legislatures may respond after a law is struck down.

Key Takeaways

1. Data first: representation + efficiency assessment are essential.
2. Curative statutes are permissible; do not “overrule” courts, remove the defect.
3. Consequential seniority may be retrospective if justified.
4. Creamy layer does not govern consequential seniority.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “PAVITRA = Proof + Advancement + Valid In TRAnsfers”

1. Proof: Collect data on representation and efficiency.
2. Advancement: Promote inclusion through seniority.
3. Valid Transfers: Retrospective seniority stands if law cures defects.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Validity of Karnataka’s 2018 Act granting consequential seniority; role of efficiency; creamy layer question.

Rule: Articles 16(4A) and 335; curative legislation principle.

Application: State gathered quantifiable data via Committee. Data showed inadequate representation and no harm to efficiency. Thus the defect in the 2002 law was cured.

Conclusion: 2018 Act upheld; retrospective seniority valid; creamy layer inapplicable.

Glossary

Consequential Seniority

Seniority that follows automatically after a reserved promotion.

Curative Statute

A new law that fixes the defect identified by a court without overruling it.

Efficiency (Art. 335)

Quality of administration measured with inclusion, representation, and service outcomes.

FAQs

Related Cases