A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had reserved its verdict on August 30 after hearing various stakeholders, including the Centre, on the matter.
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce on Wednesday its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking that a seven-judge bench reconsiders the court's 2006 judgement which had put conditions for granting quota benefits in job promotions for SC/ST employees.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra will pronounce the verdict. The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman, SK Kaul and Indu Malhotra, had reserved its verdict on August 30 after hearing various stakeholders, including the Centre, on the matter.
CJI Misra is due to retire next week with October 1 being his last working day in office and benches headed by him are expected to deliver verdicts on some key issues in coming days. Besides a verdict on SC/ST quota in promotions, the top court will today pronounce judgments in Aadhaar case, membership revival of lawmakers if conviction stayed and live-streaming Supreme Court proceedings.
A five-judge constitution bench, in its 2006 verdict in the M Nagraj case, had said the states are bound to provide quantifiable data on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), the facts about their inadequate representation in government jobs and the overall administrative efficiency, before providing quota in promotions to members of these communities.
The Centre and various state governments have also sought reconsideration of this verdict on various grounds, including that the members of the SC and ST communities are presumed to be backward and considering their stigma of caste, they should be given reservation even in job promotions.
The Centre has alleged that the verdict in the M Nagraj case had put unnecessary conditions in granting quota benefits to the SC and ST employees and sought its reconsideration by a larger bench.
Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, has strongly argued in favour of granting quota to SC and ST employees, saying there was a presumption of backwardness in their favour.
He said the SC and ST communities have been facing caste-based discrimination for long and the stigma of caste is attached to them despite the fact that some of them have come up.
During on of the hearings, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who represents those opposing quota in promotions, had told the bench that earlier there was presumption of backwardness with regard to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities.
There should not be quota in promotions for higher services as the presumption of backwardness of SC and ST employees "vanishes" once they join government service, he had claimed.
Dwivedi had also said quota in promotions for SC/ST may be continued for class-IV and class-III services, but should not be allowed for higher services.
Earlier, the top court had questioned the logic behind granting quota in promotions in government jobs to the kith and kin of affluent persons among the SC and ST communities who have been holding high official positions.
It had asked why the 'creamy layer' principle, used to exclude the affluent among other backward classes (OBCs) from enjoying the fruits of reservation, cannot be made applicable to deny quota benefits in promotion to those affluent among the SC and ST communities.
M Nagraj case verdict of 2006
The M Nagaraj verdict had said that the creamy layer concept cannot be applied to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for promotions in government jobs like two earlier verdicts of 1992 Indra Sawhney and others versus Union of India (popularly called Mandal Commission verdict) and 2005 EV Chinnaiah versus state of Andhra Pradesh, which dealt with creamy layer in Other Backward Classes category.
The Nagaraj verdict had reiterated that the ceiling-limit of 50 percent, the concept of the creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency were all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.
It had further said that the state was not bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter of promotions.
"However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of Article 335," the five-judge constitution bench had said in its 2006 judgement.
It had also clarified that even if the state has compelling reasons, as specified, the state would have to see that its reservation provisions do not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50 percent or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.
(With PTI inputs)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Picture for representation, PTI")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}