Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - (1.) This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are A The constitutional challenge B The constitutional backdrop to reservations in Karnataka C Submissions C.I Petitioners C.2 Submissions for the respondents and intervenors D Assent to the Bill E Does the Reservation Act 2018 overrule or nullify B K Pavitra I E.I Is the basis of B K Pavitra I cured in enacting the Reservation Act 2018 E.2 The Ratna Prabha Committee report F Substantive versus formal equality F.I The Constituent Assembly's understanding of Article 16 (4) F.2 The Constitution as a transformative instrument G Efficiency in administration H The issue of creamy layer I Retrospectivity J Over representation in KPTCL and PWD K Conclusion A The constitutional challenge 1 The principal challenge in this batch of cases is to the validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018 (Reservation Act 2018). The enactment provides, among other things, for consequential seniority to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) promoted under the reservation policy of the State of Karnataka. The law protects consequential seniority from 24 April 1978.
(2.) The Reservation Act 2018 was preceded in time by the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of the Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2002 (Reservation Act 2002). The constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2002 was challenged in B K Pavitra v Union of India, 2017 4 SCC 620, ("B K Pavitra I"). A two judge Bench of this Court (consisting of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice U U Lalit) held Sections 3 and 4 of the Reservation Act 2002 to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that an exercise for determining "inadequacy of representation", "backwardness" and the impact on "overall efficiency" had not preceded the enactment of the law. Such an exercise was held to be mandated by the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in M Nagaraj v Union of India, 2006 8 SCC 212 ("Nagaraj"). In the absence of the State of Karnataka having collected quantifiable data on the above three parameters, the Reservation Act 2002 was held to be invalid.
(3.) The legislature in the State of Karnataka enacted the Reservation Act 2018 after this Court invalidated the Reservation Act 2002 in B K Pavitra I. The grievance of the petitioners is that the state legislature has virtually re-enacted the earlier legislation without curing its defects. According to the petitioners, it is not open to a legislative body governed by the parameters of a written constitution to override a judicial decision, without taking away its basis. On the other hand, the State government has asserted that an exercise for collecting "quantifiable data" was in fact carried out, consistent with the parameters required by the decision in Nagaraj. The petitioners question both the process and the outcome of the exercise carried out by the state for collecting quantifiable data. B The constitutional backdrop to reservations in Karnataka;