Did the Supreme Court send M. Nagaraj for reconsideration by a larger bench?

No. The Court held that Nagaraj did not need a seven-Judge reference. It clarified parts of Nagaraj instead of reopening it fully.

Is the State required to collect data showing backwardness of SCs/STs for promotions?

No. Requiring quantifiable data to prove backwardness was held invalid in light of Indra Sawhney. However, other data requirements remain.

Does the creamy layer principle apply to SC/ST promotions?

Yes. The Court applied the creamy layer filter to exclude the socially advanced within SC/ST from promotional reservation benefits.

What does Article 16(4) allow the State to do?

It allows reservation in appointments or posts for backward classes that, in the State’s opinion, are not adequately represented in public services.

What remains the ceiling for reservations?

The 50% ceiling rule continues to guide reservation policy unless exceptional circumstances are shown under constitutional jurisprudence.

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396

SC 2018 Constitution Bench 2018 10 SCC 396 Equality • Public Employment ~7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published: 24 Oct 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: reservation in promotions, creamy layer, Article 16(4), Indra Sawhney, M. Nagaraj SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: quantifiable data, backwardness, adequate representation, equality of opportunity

Quick Summary

CASE_TITLE: Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396

Slug: jarnail-singh-v-lachhmi-narain-gupta-2018-10-scc-396

PUBLISH_DATE: 24 Oct 2025 • AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India

This case refined how reservation in promotions works for SC/ST employees. The Court did not send M. Nagaraj to a larger bench, removed the need to prove backwardness of SC/ST with fresh data, and applied the creamy layer filter to exclude the socially advanced from promotional benefits.

Issues

Should M. Nagaraj be re-examined by a seven-Judge Bench?
Is the requirement to collect quantifiable data to prove backwardness valid?
Should the creamy layer among SC/ST be excluded from reservation in promotions?

Rules

Article 16: Ensures equality of opportunity in public employment for all citizens.
Article 16(4): Lets the State provide reservation where a backward class is not adequately represented in State services.

Facts (Timeline)

Nagaraj (2006): States must show backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency for SC/ST promotion quotas.

After Nagaraj: Many States found it hard to meet the “backwardness data” condition for SC/ST promotions.

Petitions filed: Claim—backwardness-data requirement clashes with Indra Sawhney; seek larger bench review of Nagaraj.

Reference stage: Court decided a five-Judge Bench would hear it; no need for a seven-Judge reference.

Final (2018): Court clarified Nagaraj: no data needed to prove SC/ST backwardness; creamy layer exclusion applies.

Timeline graphic for the Jarnail Singh case

Arguments

Petitioners

Nagaraj wrongly forced States to prove backwardness of SC/ST again.
Such proof conflicts with Indra Sawhney and Article 16(4).
Clarify the creamy layer position for promotions.

Respondents

Data is needed to ensure adequate representation and efficiency.
Creamy layer exclusion keeps benefits with those most in need.

Judgment (Held)

No seven-Judge reference: M. Nagaraj did not need reconsideration by a larger bench.
No fresh proof of SC/ST backwardness: The requirement to collect quantifiable data of backwardness was invalid in light of Indra Sawhney.
Creamy layer applies: The creamy layer among SC/ST is to be excluded from reservation in promotions.
Other conditions remain: States still need data on inadequate representation and to respect administrative efficiency and the 50% ceiling.

Judgment highlight for Jarnail Singh case

Ratio Decidendi

Backwardness data: Not required for SC/ST promotions post Jarnail Singh.
Creamy layer: Exclusion principle applies to SC/ST in promotions as a tool of identification, not equality denial.
Continuing checks: Quantifiable data for inadequate representation and respect for efficiency and ceiling continue.

Why It Matters

The case gives workable rules for promotions. It protects merit and efficiency while targeting benefits to those who need them within SC/ST communities.

Key Takeaways

Nagaraj stands; only clarified, not overruled.
No data to prove backwardness of SC/ST for promotions.
Creamy layer excluded from promotional reservation.
States must still show inadequate representation and preserve efficiency.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “N-O-C-L” — Nagaraj stays, Omit backwardness data, Ceiling & efficiency remain, Leave out creamy layer.

Ask: Promotion quota for SC/ST?
Check: Inadequate representation data + efficiency; no backwardness data.
Apply: Exclude creamy layer; follow 50% ceiling norms.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether Nagaraj needed reconsideration; whether backwardness data is required; whether creamy layer applies to SC/ST promotions.

Rule

Article 16 and 16(4) allow targeted reservation; judicial checks ensure representation and efficiency; creamy layer may be excluded.

Application

The Court removed the backwardness-data hurdle for SC/ST, kept data on representation and efficiency, and applied the creamy layer filter.

Conclusion

Nagaraj stands clarified. Promotions for SC/ST proceed without proving backwardness, but with creamy layer exclusion and data on representation.

Glossary

Article 16: Guarantees equal opportunity in public employment.
Article 16(4): Lets the State reserve posts for backward classes not adequately represented.
Creamy Layer: Relatively advanced members of a community who are excluded from reservation benefits.

FAQs

No. It was clarified, not referred to a seven-Judge Bench.

No. The Court struck down the backwardness-data requirement for SC/ST promotions.

Yes. Creamy layer exclusion applies to reservation in promotions for SC/ST.

Quantifiable data of inadequate representation and compliance with administrative efficiency and ceiling limits.