Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In M. Nagaraj (supra), the Court has encompassed the facts in the following manner:-

“The petitioners have invoked Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 inserting Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution retrospectively from 17-6-1995 providing reservation in promotion with consequential seniority as being unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure. According to the petitioners, the impugned amendment reverses the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan5, Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab6 (Ajit Singh-I), Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab7, Ajit Singh (III) v. State of Punjab8, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (supra) and M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka9. The petitioners say that Parliament has appropriated the judicial power to itself and has acted as an Appellate Authority by reversing the judicial pronouncements of this Court by the use of power of amendment as done by the impugned amendment and is, therefore, violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. The said (1995) 6 SCC 684 (1996) 2 SCC 715 (1999) 7 SCC 209 (2000) 1 SCC 430 (2001) 2 SCC 666 amendment is, therefore, constitutionally invalid and is liable to be set aside. The petitioners have further pleaded that the amendment also seeks to alter the fundamental right of equality which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The petitioners say that the equality in the context of Article 16(1) connotes “accelerated promotion” so as not to include consequential seniority. The petitioners say that by attaching consequential seniority to the accelerated promotion, the impugned amendment violates equality in Article 14 read with Article 16(1). The petitioners further say that by providing reservation in the matter of promotion with consequential seniority, there is impairment of efficiency. The petitioners say that in Indra Sawhney (supra) decided on 16-11-1992, this Court has held that under Article 16(4), reservation to the Backward Classes is permissible only at the time of initial recruitment and not in promotion. The petitioners say that contrary to the said judgment delivered on 16-11-1992, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995. By the said amendment, Article 16(4-A) was inserted, which reintroduced reservation in promotion. The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 is also challenged by some of the petitioners.