Supreme Court’s adoption of roster system for appointment of SC, ST candidates came thirty years too late and yet more is to be done
On July 1, CJI B.R. Gavai announced that the SC would adopt a 200-point roster system for appointment of SC and ST candidates. While a remarkable moment, the development comes thirty years after the R.K. Sabharwal decision which first evoked the roster idea, and between no reservations for OBCs, and the Court’s own difficult legacy on reservations in promotions, hurdles remain in realising effective representation in our courts.
Published on: 4 July 2025, 11:07 am
Editor’s Note: This is a move that should indeed be seen as a “milestone”, as senior advocate Dr K.S. Chauhan notes in a recent letter to CJI Gavai. Previously, Dr Chauhan had written to CJI Gavai on June 2 requesting for a direction for reservation in promotions. Only 0.5 percent of the cadre of Branch Officer and Deputy Registrar were from SC/ST communities in the Supreme Court, and none so from posts such as Assistant Registrar, Additional Registrar and Registrar, according to Dr Chauhan. As Justice K Chandru also notes in this piece, while former CJI K.G. Balakrishnan had implemented reservations in the Supreme Court in 2007, there had been no effective implementation of it. Now, with the roster publication, that is possible, and it is on CJI Gavai to issue comprehensive directions to see through this exercise.
JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH, SPEAKING ON BEHALF of a Constitution Bench thirty years ago emphasised the need to adopt a roster system as a better method to distribute posts so that there could be an equitable distribution and the purpose of reservation will be achieved.
It exhorted “if the roster is permitted to operate till the total posts in a cadre are filled by the same category of persons whose retirement etc. caused the vacancies then the balance between the reserve category and the general category shall always be maintained.” (R.K.Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, 1995 (2) SCC 745).
Finally, the Master of the Roster of the Supreme Court thought fit to adopt a roster for appointment of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates to the Supreme Court. It took three decades for the Supreme Court Chief Justice to announce a 200 point roster system to be adopted in the matter of filling up of posts.
On July 1, 2025, Chief Justice B.R.Gavai said that the identification of posts have been completed and the vacancies against each reserved post shall be filled from candidates belonging to that category. However, this roster will be operated only for the benefit of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and there is no immediate reservation provided for Other Backward Classes (‘OBCs’).
It took three decades for the Supreme Court Chief Justice to announce a 200 point roster system to be adopted in the matter of filling up of posts.
In Indra Sawhney (1992) a larger bench upheld the reservation of posts in central services up to 27 percent for the OBCs. However, the Supreme Court did not choose to make any reservation in favour of OBCs despite this judgement. For long, the Supreme Court Collegium has patted itself on the back every time there has been a recommendation of a judge from a Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes category for elevation to the Supreme Court and High Courts, stating that such an appointment would bring diversity to the Court. Of late, in the Collegium recommendations uploaded on the Supreme Court website, one can see the considerations that weighed with the collegium while making such representations.
The Court, in the initial fifty years of its existence, refused to accept the concept of reservation in the matter of appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. In 2013, when the Madras High Court recommended names of twelve candidates for elevation to the High Court, none of whom were from a reserved category, , the Bar opposed such a biased recommendation and also filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the consideration of such names.