Supreme Court Upholds Reservation for Persons with Disabilities in Promotions: SIDDARAJU v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (2020 INSC 36)

Supreme Court Upholds Reservation for Persons with Disabilities in Promotions

Introduction

The landmark judgment in SIDDARAJU v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (2020 INSC 36) delivered by the Supreme Court of India on January 14, 2020, addresses a pivotal issue concerning the reservation of seats for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) in promotions within government employment. This case emerged from a reference made by a Division Bench of the court, challenging the interpretation and implementation of reservations under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter referred to as the 1995 Act).

The primary parties involved are Siddaraju and the State of Karnataka, with the case delving into whether the existing statutory provisions support granting reservations in promotions for PWD, thereby ensuring their equitable representation and participation in the workforce.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, led by Justice R.F. Nariman, deliberated on whether individuals classified under the 1995 Act could be granted reservations in promotions—a subject previously constrained by the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) which limited reservations to certain categories under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.

In this case, after examining previous judgments, statutory provisions, and constitutional mandates, the Court concluded that reservations for PWD in promotions are permissible and distinct from reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The Court emphasized that PWD reservations fall under Article 16(1), allowing horizontal reservations that can coexist with vertical reservations without breaching the 50% cap established in Indra Sawhney.

Consequently, the Court struck down certain clauses in the Office Memorandum dated December 29, 2005, which had constrained the manner of reservation computation, directing the government to issue new memorandums consistent with the Court’s interpretation. The judgment reinforced that reservations for PWD should be uniformly applied across all employment groups, irrespective of the mode of recruitment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents that shaped the Court’s reasoning:

  • Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 215): This case established the 50% ceiling on reservations and differentiated between vertical and horizontal reservations. It held that reservations in promotions are not permissible under Article 16(4).
  • Southern Railway v. Rangachari (AIR 1962 SC 36): Prior to Indra Sawhney, this case permitted reservations in promotions, which Indra Sawhney later overruled.
  • Rajiv Kumar Gupta v. Union of India (2016) 13 SCC 153: Affirmed that reservations for PWDs are horizontal and distinct from reservations for OBCs, thereby allowing them to coexist without violating the 50% cap.
  • National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari (2020) 19 SCC 584: Clarified the manner of computing reservations for PWDs, emphasizing uniformity across all employment groups.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s legal reasoning hinged on the constitutional provisions governing reservations and the specific mandates of the 1995 Act. The Court drew a clear distinction between vertical reservations (e.g., caste-based reservations under Article 16(4)) and horizontal reservations (e.g., disability-based reservations under Article 16(1)).

By classifying reservations for PWDs as horizontal, the Court posited that they are interlocking with vertical reservations and thus do not contribute to the 50% ceiling applicable to vertical reservations alone. This interpretation aligns with the Court’s earlier stance in Indra Sawhney itself, where it acknowledged the existence of two distinct types of reservations.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the socio-economic imperatives of empowering PWDs through employment, recognizing that reservations in promotions are essential for their inclusive participation in the workforce. The acknowledgment of international treaties and the constitutional obligation to uphold human rights underpinned this reasoning.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for the implementation of disability reservations in India:

  • Policy Implementation: Government offices and public sector undertakings must revise their reservation policies to include PWDs in promotions, ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives.
  • Legal Precedent: The decision reinforces the constitutional mandate for horizontal reservations and provides a clear pathway for PWDs to seek reservations in promotions, encouraging judicial recourse in instances of non-compliance.
  • Administrative Uniformity: The directive to identify posts uniformly across all groups ensures that PWD reservations are systematically integrated into employment structures, reducing ambiguity and litigation related to reservation computations.
  • Empowerment of PWDs: By legitimizing reservation in promotions, the judgment facilitates better career advancement opportunities for PWDs, contributing to their socio-economic empowerment and inclusion.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Vertical vs. Horizontal Reservations

Vertical Reservations refer to reservations based on specific social categories such as caste, tribe, or economic backwardness. These reservations are subject to the 50% ceiling to ensure that reservations do not exceed half of the total job vacancies.

Horizontal Reservations are additional reservations that cut across the vertical categories. For example, reservations for PWDs are horizontal as they apply to individuals within all the vertical categories (e.g., Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and General category).

50% Ceiling in Indra Sawhney

The 50% ceiling established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India limits the total number of reserved seats to prevent any single reservation category from dominating. However, horizontal reservations like those for PWDs are exempt from this ceiling.

Reservation in Promotions

Unlike reservations in initial appointments (promoting individuals from open competition pools), reservations in promotions refer to giving preferential treatment to PWDs when they are vying for higher positions within the same organization or cadre.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in SIDDARAJU v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA marks a significant advancement in the rights of Persons with Disabilities in India. By affirming the legality of reservation in promotions for PWDs, the Court not only clarified the interpretation of existing laws but also reinforced India's commitment to inclusive employment practices.

This decision ensures that PWDs receive equitable opportunities for career advancement, thereby contributing to their overall empowerment and integration into the workforce. It also sets a robust legal precedent that distinguishes between different types of reservations, ensuring that the constitutional framework supporting affirmative action remains balanced and just.

Moving forward, government bodies must adhere strictly to the Court’s directives, revising policies and practices to align with the legal standards established herein. This will foster a more inclusive and equitable employment environment, honoring the constitutional and international obligations towards the rights and participation of Persons with Disabilities.

Case Details

Year: 2020
Court: Supreme Court Of India

Judge(s)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Advocates

For Appellant(s) Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivankur Shukla, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR Mr. Jayna Kothari, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, AOR Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Sumit Upadhyay, Adv Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasiya, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Adv. Shirmanjal Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR Dr. K.B. Sounder Rajan, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Meena Sehrawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.J. Amith, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Md. Shahid Anwar, AOR Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. Rajn Mani, Adv. Ms. Reetu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Ms. Anushree Shukla, Adv. Mr. Arsh Dhanotia, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendrapal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pande, Adv.

Comments