Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgments that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for the maintenance of efficiency of administration.
Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Explanation
Statement 1 is correct: The Supreme Court of India has held in several judgments - Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992) and M Nagaraj v Union of India (2006) that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution would be limited by Article 335, which provides for ‘maintenance of efficiency of administration’, while considering the claims of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the making of appointments to public services and posts.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Article 335 mentions that the claims of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) must be considered in appointments to services and posts, but this must be consistent with the maintenance of efficiency in administration. However, Article 335 does not define the term "efficiency of administration", leaving its interpretation to judicial and administrative discretion. This gap in interpretation was filled by a two-judge bench in the B K Pavitra (II) v Union of India (2019), as it held that ‘efficiency of administration in the affairs of the union or of a state must be defined in an inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society find representation as a true aspiration of governance by and for the people’.
For S2, The word "defines" is a strong and rigid claim. Think practically: The Constitution is not a dictionary. It doesn’t explicitly list out or define "efficiency of administration". Hence likely false. Gives option C as correct..