LANDMARK CASE

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India

(2006) 8 SCC 212 · Supreme Court of India · Constitutional law

At a glance

Citation: (2006) 8 SCC 212
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Constitutional law
In one line: The amendments were upheld, but the state must show backwardness, inadequate representation and administrative efficiency.

1 Facts

Amendments allowing reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were challenged.

2 Issue

Are the amendments valid, and what must the state show?

3 What the court decided

The amendments were upheld, but the state must show backwardness, inadequate representation and administrative efficiency.

4 Why it matters

Partly modified in Jarnail Singh (2018) on the backwardness requirement.

5 Think about it

Why does administrative efficiency matter under Article 335?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Constitutional law

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← M'Naghten's Case M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya) →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.