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 the 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?

1. A. Both Statements-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement- II is the correct explanation for Statement-I
2. B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement- II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I
3. C. Statement-I is correct but Statement- II is incorrect
4. D. Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct

Answer: C

Explanation

Statement I is correct: The Supreme Court, in various judgments like Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1993) and M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), has consistently held that reservation policies under Article 16(4) must be balanced with the need to maintain efficiency in administration, as enshrined in Article 335. This ensures that while promoting social justice, the quality of public services is not compromised. Statement II is incorrect: Article 335 of the Constitution states that the claims of SCs and STs shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in making appointments. However, Article 335 itself does not define the term ‘efficiency of administration’. This term has been subject to judicial interpretation over time. Therefore, Statement I is correct, but Statement II is incorrect.