Supreme Court: The 5-judge Constitution Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and Kurian Joseph, R.F. Nariman, S.K. Kaul and Indu Malhotra, JJ., held the decision in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, bad in law to the extent it requires quantifiable data for reservation in promotions because it is contrary to the decision in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. Also, Nagraj judgment does not require any reconsideration.

The Nagraj judgment raised the question of reservation in promotions for members of the SC/ST communities and Apex Court had laid down the criteria regarding the same in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.

The Supreme Court held that the conditions laid down in the Nagaraj judgment need to be struck down as the condition of proving backwardness violates the 9-Judge Bench decision in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.

[Source: https://twitter.com/TheLeaflet_in]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.