Question map
Consider the following statements : Statement-I : The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for 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
The correct answer is Option 3 because Statement-I is correct, while Statement-II is incorrect.
Statement-I is correct: In the landmark Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) case, the Supreme Court held that Article 16(4) must be read in conjunction with Article 335. It affirmed that while providing reservations for backward classes, the "efficiency of administration" must be maintained, as mandated by Article 335. This established a constitutional limitation on the extent of reservation policies.
Statement-II is incorrect: Although Article 335 mentions that the claims of SCs/STs shall be taken into consideration "consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration," the Constitution does not define the term "efficiency of administration." The interpretation of this term has been left to judicial discretion and administrative guidelines rather than a specific constitutional definition.
Therefore, since Statement-I aligns with judicial precedents and Statement-II falsely claims a constitutional definition exists, Option 3 is the only valid choice.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Definition Trap' question. Statement I is standard static polity covered in Laxmikanth (Indra Sawhney context). Statement II tests your familiarity with the 'Bare Act'—specifically, knowing what the Constitution does NOT define. If you rely only on summaries without checking the original text for definitions, you lose marks here.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Have any Supreme Court of India judgments held that reservation policies under Article 16(4) of the Constitution are limited by Article 335's requirement for maintenance of efficiency of administration?
- Statement 2: Does Article 335 of the Constitution of India define the term "efficiency of administration"?
- Directly links Article 335's maintenance-of-efficiency requirement to limits on reservation practices by stating there should be no relaxations in qualifying marks or standards due to Article 335.
- Refers to the Supreme Court's treatment of OBC reservation where conditions (including maintenance of efficiency) were imposed while upholding constitutional validity.
- Explains that the 82nd Amendment inserted a proviso to Article 335, 'almost closing the door' on considering maintenance of efficiency in appointments—implying prior judicial consideration of Article 335 as a limiting factor.
- Shows a constitutional response to earlier judicial application of Article 335, indicating courts had relied on it to limit reservation policy.
- Explicitly states the Constitution does not define the term.
- Directly links Article 335's requirement to a noted absence of a definition.
- Affirms there is no definition of what the framers meant by the phrase.
- Comes from a judicial source discussing interpretation of Article 335.
- Quotes Article 335 using the phrase 'maintenance of efficiency of administration'.
- By quoting the Article without supplying a definition, it supports that the term appears but is not defined in the text.
Explicitly states that a proviso was inserted to Article 335 concerning 'maintenance of efficiency of administration', showing Article 335 uses that phrase.
A student could compare this to the actual text of Article 335 to see whether the phrase appears as a substantive definition or only as a proviso/qualifier.
Quotes Article 335 as enjoining consideration of Scheduled Castes/STs' claims 'consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration', indicating the provision balances reservations with administrative efficiency rather than defining the term.
One could infer that because Article 335 frames efficiency as a policy-consideration, the Constitution likely does not contain a technical definition, prompting a search in the text or case-law for any definitional clause.
Defines 'executive power' as 'the power of carrying on the business of government' or 'the administration', connecting the constitutional notion of administration to practical functioning (where 'efficiency' would be relevant).
A student could use this general definition to judge whether Article 335's reference to 'efficiency of administration' is descriptive (policy aim) rather than a legal technical term requiring definition.
Notes an integrated administrative system and that all-India services serve state administration, implying 'efficiency of administration' relates to functioning of services and appointments.
Using this, a student might reason that Article 335's concern with appointments and reservations would address administrative functioning normatively, not by supplying a formal definitional clause — so they should check constitutional text and judicial interpretation.
Contains a test-question phrasing that explicitly treats as a claim whether 'Article 335 ... defines the term', indicating this is a contested point in standard study-materials.
A student could take this as a prompt to verify by looking up authoritative sources (text of Article 335 and major commentaries or judgments) to resolve the exam-style question.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter/Trap. Statement I is direct from Laxmikanth (Ch: Fundamental Rights). Statement II is a 'Negative Knowledge' check (knowing what isn't there).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The tension between Social Justice (Article 16) and Administrative Merit (Article 335).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'Undefined List': Untouchability (Art 17), Minority (Art 29/30), Martial Law (Art 34), Violation of Constitution (Art 61), Efficiency of Administration (Art 335). Contrast with 82nd Amendment (added proviso to Art 335) and 77th Amendment (Reservations in promotion).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When reading Polity, maintain a 'Definition Audit' list. Whenever you see a heavy keyword (Efficiency, Backwardness, Office of Profit), immediately verify: 'Is this explicitly defined in Article 366 or the specific Article, or is it judicial invention?'
Article 335 imposes a maintenance-of-efficiency requirement that has been applied to limit reservation practices in public employment.
High-yield for questions on reservation jurisprudence and conflict between equality and administrative efficiency; connects to Articles 16(4) and to judicial review of affirmative action. Mastering this clarifies how substantive limits (standards/qualifying marks) can be constitutionally required and helps answer questions on policy-vs-efficiency tradeoffs.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > II Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment > p. 83
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8] Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 113 > p. 113
Amendments such as the 82nd (Article 335 proviso) and 77th (reservation in promotion) materially changed how maintenance-of-efficiency and promotion reservations operate.
Important for mapping timeline of reservation jurisprudence and understanding how Parliament responds to judicial rulings; useful for essay/ethics and polity questions on separation of powers and constitutional change.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8] Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 113 > p. 113
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8] Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 113 > p. 114
Courts have upheld reservations subject to conditions like excluding creamy layer, enforcing a 50% ceiling, and refusing relaxations in qualifying standards to maintain efficiency.
Crucial for multiple-choice and mains questions testing specifics of reservation limits; links doctrinal points (creamylayer, ceiling, standards) with Article 16(4) and Article 335, enabling candidates to cite precise constraints in answers.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > II Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment > p. 83
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8] Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 113 > p. 114
Article 335 requires that claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes be considered consistently with maintaining efficiency of administration in appointments.
High-yield for UPSC because questions test the constitutional balance between reservation and administrative efficiency; links to Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and public employment jurisprudence. Mastering this helps answer questions on limits to reservation, judicial interpretation, and appointment policy.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > The Supreme Court of India in National Legal Services Authority v UOI, observed: > p. 188
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8] Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 113 > p. 113
The 82nd Amendment inserted a proviso to Article 335 that restricts how maintenance of administrative efficiency can be used against reservation concessions.
Important for exam questions on constitutional amendments and their impact on social justice provisions; it enables analysis of amendment-specific changes to reservation law and interpretation of provisos versus principal clauses.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8] Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 113 > p. 113
The executive power is described as the power of carrying on the business of government or administration, which frames what 'efficiency of administration' would concern.
Useful for interpreting phrases like 'efficiency of administration' in constitutional provisions and judicial review contexts; connects executive power, administrative relations and appointment policies across Centre and States, enabling synthesis-type answers.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 11: The Union Executive > 2. Powers and Duties of the President > p. 209
Since they asked about Art 335, the next logical target is the 'Office of Profit'. It is mentioned in Art 102 and 191 but is NOT defined in the Constitution. Similarly, 'Creamy Layer' is a judicial innovation (Indra Sawhney), not a Constitutional term.
The 'Subjectivity Heuristic': 'Efficiency' is a subjective, qualitative quality. Constitutions generally define objective, legalistic entities (e.g., 'Anglo-Indian', 'Scheduled Caste'). They rarely define subjective qualities. If a statement says the Constitution defines a subjective term, mark it FALSE.
Mains GS-2 & GS-4 (Ethics): Use the concept of 'Inclusive Efficiency' from the B.K. Pavitra II judgment. Argue that efficiency isn't just 'marks' (merit) but also 'representation' (diversity). This bridges the gap between Art 16(4) and Art 335 in your answers.