CASTE RESERVATION SYSTEM IN INDIA AND SUPREME COURT LETEST DECISION ON IT

Admin

1 month ago

Author : Pavani Priya. Akula Sri Padmavathi Mahila Vishvavidyalam

TO THE POINT

In olden days caste is the major discrimination in India and to eradicate such discrimination and to encourage backward castes like Schedule castes (S.C) and Schedule tribes (S.T) in education and to provide equal opportunity in jobs and politics reservation of castes are introduced in India. Reservation system was first introduced by William Hunter and Jyotirao Phule, but it was not recognised again in the year 1933 it was recommended by British Prime minister Ramsay Macdonald and came into force, to eradicate the discrimination in future it was included into the constitution through Article 330 and 332 by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. At first it was drafted for ten years and allowed to increase the period by amendments. After this, 6 amendments were made to increase the reservation period. In recent times through 104th amendment reservation period was increased to 2030. In the year 2024 Supreme court allowed the states to subdivide the schedule castes and schedule tribes to improve the backward and illiterate people in those Castes.

USE OF LEGAL JARGON

1. Article 15(4): Enables state to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.

2. Article 16(4): Allows state to make provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favor of backward classes.

3. Article 21: Guarantees right to life and personal liberty.

Reservation-Related Terms

1. Reservation: Provision of seats or positions reserved for backward classes.

2. Quota: Percentage of seats reserved for backward classes.

3. Caste-based reservation: Reservation based on caste identity.

4. Creamy layer: Economically advanced individuals within backward classes, excluded from reservation benefits.

Caste reservation-Related Terms

1. Scheduled Castes (SCs): Castes listed in the Constitution (Schedule Castes) Order, 1950.

2. Scheduled Tribes (STs): Tribes listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

3. Other Backward Classes (OBCs): Castes not listed in SC or ST categories but considered socially and educationally backward.

4. General Category: Individuals not belonging to SC, ST, or OBC categories.

THE PROOF

1. Article 15(4): Enables the state to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.

2. Article 16(4): Allows the state to make provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favor of backward classes.

3. Article 46: Directs the state to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, including SCs and STs.

Laws and Policies

1. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Protects SCs and STs from atrocities.

2. The National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993: Establishes a commission for OBC welfare.

3. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006: Provides for OBC reservation in central educational institutions.

4. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation in Posts and Services) Act, 1994: Provides for reservation in posts and services for SCs and STs.

Government Orders and Notifications

1. Government of India Notification (1993): Established the National Commission for Backward Classes.

2. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Notification (2004): Provided for reservation in appointments to posts in the central government for OBCs.

3. University Grants Commission (UGC) Notification (2006): Implemented OBC reservation in central educational institutions.

Reports and Recommendations

1. Mandal Commission Report (1980): Recommended reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions.

2. Kaka Kalelkar Commission Report (1955): Recommended reservation for SCs and STs in government jobs and educational institutions.

Judicial Pronouncements

1. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Supreme Court established the creamy layer concept.

2. Mandal Commission Case (1992): Supreme Court upheld reservation for OBCs.

3. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008): Supreme Court upheld OBC reservation in central educational institutions.

ABSTRACT

In ancient india there are mainly 5 castes i.e., Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. At present in india there are 3,000 castes and 25,000 sub-castes derived from the main castes. Shudras are considered as Dalits or untouchables and they are not allowed into schools and temples in olden days and used to live far to village. Drinking water, footpath is separate to them and drinking water which is used by the higher classes are restricted to them. In ancient india before constitution schedule caste people used to tie a palm tree leaf to their legs to clean the path when they walk in the path of the higher classes and even, they are not allowed to study into schools. To avoid all these kinds of discriminatory acts and to establish equality among the people constitution was written with some articles that provide some special status or some special rights to the Schedule castes and Schedule Tribes. Before constitution in the year 1882 William Hunter and Jyotirao Phule introduced some kind of reservation to the lower castes, but they didn’t come into force later in the year 1933 British Prime mister Ramsay Macdonald introduced the system of caste reservation in india and it was continued in the Indian Constitution.

After the independence when constitution came into force with certain articles 330, 332 and it provided 10 years period for reservation and can be extended through amendments. Article 330 provides reservation of seats in Lok Sabha and Article 332 provides reservation of seats in Rajya Sabha. In the year 1956 the constitution was amended for Schedule castes and Schedule Tribes. In the year 77th amendment is carried out and in this amendment 16(4) was added to the constitution which states that states can make reservations for promotions in government services. The following are some amendments that was caried out for extension of the caste reservation period.

The 8th Amendment in 1969 extended the reservation period
The 23rd Amendment in 1969 extended the reservation period
The 45th Amendment in 1980 extended the reservation period
The 62nd Amendment in 1989 extended the reservation period
The 79th Amendment in 1999 extended the reservation period

Recently in the year 2020 104th amendment was carried out and through this amendment reservation period was extended upto 2030 and it can be increased by passing a bill in parliament to provide special percentage of seats for schedule castes and schedule tribes.

Reservation of seats basing upon castes in politics:

Schedule caste (SC) – 7.5%
Schedule Tribe (ST) – 15%
OBC – 27%
EWS – 10%

Reservation of seats basing upon castes in education sector:

Schedule caste (SC) – 15%
Schedule Tribe (ST) – 7.5%
OBC – 27%

Reservation of seats basing upon caste jobs :

Schedule caste (SC) – 16.6%
Schedule Tribe (ST) – 7.5%
OBC – 25.84%

In the year 2024 supreme court held that states can sub classify the schedule castes and tribes and provide more beneficiary to the disadvantaged group in the schedule tribes and castes. This decision was outcome of sate of Punjab v Davinder Singh and others. It is a 7-judge bench case the judgement was declared in 6:1 ration majority agreed for sub classification of caste for reservation. In the present case it was declared that sub classification of Schedule caste doesn’t among to unconstitutionality and state has such power to sub divide the schedule caste and no caste be provided with 100% reservation and weaker classes in Schedule castes should be provided with more benefits compared to others.

CASE LAWS

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

– The Supreme Court established the “creamy layer” concept, excluding economically advanced individuals within backward classes from reservation benefits.

– The court also upheld the validity of reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs.

Mandal Commission Case (1992)

– The Supreme Court upheld the reservation for OBCs in government jobs, as recommended by the Mandal Commission.

– The court also established the 50% ceiling for reservation, including SC, ST, and OBC quotas.

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)

– The Supreme Court upheld the OBC reservation in central educational institutions, as per the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006.

– The court also clarified that the creamy layer concept applies to OBC reservation in educational institutions.

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

– The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995, which inserted Article 16(4A) to provide for reservation in promotions for SCs and STs.

– The court also established the principle of “compelling reasons” for providing reservation in promotions.

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

– The Supreme Court held that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, applies to posts under the central government, including those filled through promotion.

– The court also clarified that the Act’s provisions override the general reservation rules.

Chebrolu Leela Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2016)

– The Supreme Court held that the Andhra Pradesh government’s decision to provide 100% reservation to ST candidates in certain areas was unconstitutional.

– The court reiterated the 50% ceiling for reservation, as established in the Indra Sawhney case.

Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2019)

– The Supreme Court held that the Maharashtra government’s decision to provide reservation to the Maratha community was unconstitutional.

– The court reiterated the need for rigorous examination of backwardness and inadequacy of representation before providing reservation.

CONCLUSION

I conclude that reservation which is provided by constitution is correct, but extending it for sake of some malified intension is unconstitutional. During the period of independence there is untouchability and due to those conditions and makers drafted the constitution according to those situations. But in the growing generation as developing nations like India should not encourage the reservation system because it gives less preference to merit compared to caste reservation. Even it should not involve the education and job sector because a person with higher caste can gain more marks than reservation candidate due to this reservation system the merit student will subject to loss. The intension of the constitution makers is correct and good, but in the present generation reservation system kills the merit of the talented person.

I agree with the decision of the supreme court because when the reservation is provided to the well settled person in schedule caste then the poverty in the schedule caste will remain same. But providing reservations to those who are in poverty will help them become educated and to eradicate the illiteracy in the nation. According to my opinion reservation should be provided to poverty in the schedule caste but not to the settled literates in the schedule caste and reservation in education and jobs should be removed to encourage all in equality.

FAQ