Constitution of India
Article 335: Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts
Part XVI — Special Provisions Relating to Certain Classes
Article 335 — Main Text
WHAT IT SAYS: The claims of SC/ST members shall be considered, consistently with maintaining efficiency of administration, when making appointments to Union or State services and posts. WHAT IT MEANS: The State must balance two objectives — (a) adequate representation of SCs/STs in public employment, and (b) not compromising administrative efficiency. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Balancing Efficiency with Social Justice — reservation policies under Art. 16(4) are constitutionally limited by the efficiency mandate of Art. 335.
Proviso — Inserted by 82nd Amendment Act, 2000
WHAT IT SAYS: Nothing in this article shall prevent making any provision for SC/ST members for (a) relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination, (b) lowering standards of evaluation, or (c) reservation in matters of promotion — in connection with Union or State services. WHAT IT MEANS: The State can relax minimum qualifying marks and evaluation standards for SC/ST candidates in promotions without being blocked by the 'efficiency' requirement of the main article. KEY DOCTRINE: Overrode the Supreme Court's ruling in S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (1996) and Indra Sawhney (1992), which had held such relaxations impermissible under Art. 16(4) read with Art. 335.
Constitutional Inspiration
IF ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: 1. Article 335 is an original Indian provision — no direct foreign equivalent exists. 2. Born from India's unique caste-based social hierarchy and the historic exclusion of Dalits and Adivasis from public services. 3. The concept of 'communal representation in services' traces back to the Government of India Act, 1919 and the Communal Award of 1932 under British rule. 4. The framers felt a specific constitutional directive was needed to ensure that SC/ST claims are not ignored in recruitment, while preventing total disregard of administrative merit. 5. The 'efficiency of administration' qualifier was a compromise between those who wanted unconditional reservation and those who wanted pure merit-based recruitment. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Combined social justice with efficiency — Unlike any foreign model, Art. 335 explicitly ties affirmative action to administrative efficiency. 2. Named specific beneficiaries (SC/ST) — The original draft covered 'all minorities', but Ambedkar narrowed it to SC and ST communities only. 3. Made it a constitutional directive (not justiciable right) — Gives the State guidance without creating an enforceable individual right to appointment.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 26 August 1949 and 14 October 1949 (CAD Volumes IX and X) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: 296 ORIGINAL DRAFT: Covered claims of 'all minority communities' — not just SC/ST. KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay) — Moved amendment to substitute 'all minority communities' with 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes', narrowing the scope exclusively to SC/ST. 2. Sardar Hukam Singh (East Punjab, Sikh) — Opposed the change; argued minorities were never consulted and the original safeguard for all minorities should be retained. 3. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal, Muslim) — Protested that the amendment was a 'disguised' and 'serious interpolation' sprung at the eleventh hour without minority consent. 4. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar) — Proposed that only 'efficiency' should matter in appointments, with Parliament empowered to list special considerations for SC/ST representation. 5. Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man (East Punjab, Sikh) — Argued the original provision was agreed upon by the Minorities Sub-Committee and should not be unilaterally altered. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Scope of beneficiaries — Whether the article should cover all minorities or only SC/ST. Sikh and Muslim members strongly opposed narrowing it. 2. Whether this change breached the 'gentlemen's agreement' with minorities from the Advisory Committee's earlier decisions. 3. Role of efficiency — Brajeshwar Prasad wanted efficiency as the sole criterion, with no mandatory consideration of SC/ST claims. FINAL OUTCOME: The Assembly rejected all counter-proposals and accepted only Ambedkar's amendment — the article was limited to SC and ST communities, adopted on 14 October 1949. AMBEDKAR'S KEY REMARK: When asked to respond to the objections, Ambedkar said 'I have nothing to add to what has already been said' — relying on the Advisory Committee's revised recommendations.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. T. Devadasan v. Union of India (1964) — Held the 'carry forward rule' unconstitutional if reservation exceeded 50% in any given year; Art. 335 read with Art. 16 requires efficiency not be sacrificed by excessive reservation. 2. State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) — Upheld promotional reservations for SC/ST; held Art. 335 should not be interpreted to undermine the purpose of Art. 16(4). 3. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — Nine-judge bench upheld reservations but capped them at 50%; held relaxation of qualifying marks in promotions was impermissible under Art. 16(4) read with Art. 335. 4. S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (1996) — Held that relaxation of qualifying marks for SC/ST in promotional reservations was not permissible under Art. 16(4) in view of Art. 335's efficiency mandate. 5. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) — Upheld validity of 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments; State must show quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and maintenance of efficiency under Art. 335. 6. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) — Removed requirement to prove backwardness of SC/ST for promotional reservations but retained the requirement of quantifiable data on inadequate representation and compliance with Art. 335 efficiency standard. 7. B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India (2019) — Redefined 'efficiency of administration' under Art. 335 in an inclusive sense — efficiency must include diverse representation, not just merit-based performance benchmarks. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice Subba Rao in T. Devadasan (1964) — Dissented; argued carry forward rule was legitimate and Art. 16(4) is not an exception but a facet of equality under Art. 16(1). SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (in B.K. Pavitra II, 2019) — Held that Art. 335 cannot rest on the 'stereotypical assumption' that SC/ST promotees are less efficient; efficiency must be defined inclusively. 2. Marc Galanter (referenced by the Court) — Argued that standardized tests mask structural inequalities; merit cannot be measured in a social vacuum. 3. EPW scholar (2021) — Argued that the Constitution framers never intended Art. 16(4) reservations to be limited by Art. 335's efficiency clause.