The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The Union government has called upon the Sup...

Join the Discussion on the App

This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).

It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.

Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.

Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?

a)
Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.
b)
Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.
c)
Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.
d)
Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test- 25

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seve...

Correct Answer is (c)

Second paragraph says "While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections." Only option which is aligned is option c.

Incorrect Answers

None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

Choice (a) - Passage is completely silent about the given indication regarding the targeting of rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation
Choice (b) - It seems to be an appropriate option. However, there is nothing in the passage to support the argument help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.
Choice (d) - Given statement is accurate and appropriate to choose but does not give sufficient reasoning unlike choice (c).

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Attention CLAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Passage - 5The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities. This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were quantifiable data to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the means test to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the creamy layer norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions. Most of them may not fall under the creamy layer category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the creamy layer. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q.Teachers recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the authors stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?

View answer

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the administrative control over the members of district and subordinate judiciary in the States vest with the concerned High Court. Further, the State Government, in consultation with the High Court, frames the Rules and Regulations regarding the issues of appointment, promotion, and reservations etc. of Judicial Officers in the State Judicial Service.Therefore, Central Government has no role in this regard. Based only on the principle of law and argument identified by the author above, would such a reservation be valid if made by the Central Government?

View answer

Passage - 5The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities. This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were quantifiable data to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the means test to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the creamy layer norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions. Most of them may not fall under the creamy layer category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the creamy layer. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q.Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the administrative control over the members of district and subordinate judiciary in the States vest with the concerned High Court. Further, the State Government, in consultation with the High Court, frames the Rules and Regulations regarding the issues of appointment, promotion, and reservations etc. of Judicial Officers in the State Judicial Service. Therefore, Central Government has no role in this regard. Based only on the principle of law and argument identified by the author above, would such a reservation be valid if made by the Central Government?

View answer

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Article 16(6) have been inserted in the constitution.This enables the State to provide the benefits of reservation on preferential basis to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in civil posts and services in the Government of India without adversely affecting the proportionate seats of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Based on the author's argument and given information, will the EWS reservation adversely affect the SC/STs reservation?

View answer

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least inferential with respect to introduction of creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation made in the passage above?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Teacher's recruitment to Sainik School is strictly merit based through a competitive exam and medical fitness. It has been decided on 10th January, 2020 to have 27% reservation for SC/ST in admissions to align with the constitutional mandate. However, reservation in promotion to SC/STs are denied if they fall in creamy layer i.e. 10 lakh salary p.a. Based on the inference drawn, what should be the author's stand on the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation?a)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in targeting the rightful and legitimate beneficiaries of reservation.b)Author would welcome the creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it will help in excluding the individual who had been benefitting successively and including those who didn't benefit from the reservation historically.c)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation as it runs counter to the constitutional mandate of social justice and egalitarianism since SC/STs are most backward among the backward sections.d)Author would oppose creamy layer in the SC/ST reservation since it violates the affirmative action jurisprudence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam