Author: Sangini Mehta, NMIMS School of Law, Bengaluru
To the Point
Caste-based reservations in India’s educational institutions are a constitutionally sanctioned form of affirmative action designed to redress centuries of systemic discrimination and social stratification. Embedded in Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 46 of the Indian Constitution, these measures are designed to advance social justice by facilitating educational opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Rooted in the principle of substantive equality, reservation policies are not just instruments of compensation but of empowerment. Although the Indian judiciary has consistently upheld the constitutionality of reservations in major rulings such as Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, and M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, these policies have also faced considerable legal and political examination. Challenges often emerge around the boundaries of equality versus merit, particularly in elite educational institutions, such as the IITs, IIMs, and central universities. The introduction of a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) via the 103rd Constitutional Amendment in 2019 significantly expanded the scope of the reservation policy, representing a landmark development in India’s approach to affirmative action.
Abstract
This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional validity and societal implications of caste-based reservations in India’s educational system. By anchoring the discussion in the relevant constitutional provisions particularly Articles 15(4), 15(5), 16(4), and 46 the paper examines the foundational principles supporting affirmative action for marginalized communities. By examining landmark judicial decisions like Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963), and Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008), the study demonstrates how the judiciary has shaped the trajectory of reservation jurisprudence, balancing social equity with constitutional morality. The paper further investigates emerging complexities, including the incorporation of the EWS quota through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and the contentious debate on applying the “creamy layer” exclusion to SC/ST categories. Leveraging doctrinal analysis, empirical data, and academic scholarship, this article contends that while caste-based reservations remain constitutionally tenable, they must continually evolve in scope and implementation to remain just, equitable, and democratically legitimate in a rapidly transforming India. Ultimately, the paper offers a nuanced view that while reservations are essential instruments of social transformation, they must be periodically reviewed, refined, and applied with precision to achieve substantive equality without undermining meritocratic principles.
Use of Legal Jargon
The constitutional discourse around caste-based reservations is characterized by the usage of critical legal terminology that anchors the policy within the framework of Indian constitutional law. Among the most salient terms is “affirmative action”, which refers to policies that support members of disadvantaged groups that have previously suffered discrimination. In the Indian context, it is implemented through “positive discrimination”, as distinct from “protective discrimination”, the latter having a more remedial connotation. Another central concept is “substantive equality”, which recognizes that mere formal equality under Article 14 does not address deep-seated structural disadvantages, thus justifying special provisions under Articles 15(4) and 15(5).
The doctrine of “reasonable classification” plays a pivotal role in evaluating the constitutionality of reservations, where classification based on caste must meet the twin tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. Furthermore, the term “creamy layer” introduced in Indra Sawhney signifies socially advanced persons within backward classes who are to be excluded from the benefits of reservation. Established in the landmark judgment Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the “basic structure doctrine” functions as a key standard for evaluating constitutional amendments like the 103rd Amendment that brought in EWS reservations to determine if they compromise the essential doctrines and foundational ideals of the Constitution.
Courts have also employed terms like “manifest arbitrariness”, as seen in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), to invalidate provisions that lack rational justification. Moreover, legal tools such as judicial review, writ jurisdiction, and doctrinal coherence are often applied by courts in reservation-related litigation. The principle of non-retrogression, although more common in international human rights law, has recently emerged in Indian judicial discourse to caution against the dilution of hard-earned rights of marginalized groups. Collectively, these legal constructs not only provide the linguistic scaffolding for judicial reasoning but also demarcate the normative boundaries within which the reservation policy must operate.
The Proof
The justification for caste-based reservations in the Indian education system is grounded not only in legal theory but also in empirical realities and sociological evidence. The Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) of 2011 highlighted glaring disparities in access to education, health, housing, and employment among Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The data showed that households belonging to these communities had far lower access to literacy and higher education than the general population. These inequalities support the presence of intelligible differentia and a rational nexux, both essential for a constitutionally permissible classification under Articles 14 and 15. Constitutionally, Articles 15(4) and 15(5) authorize the State to enact “special provisions” aimed at promoting the welfare of socially and educationally disadvantaged groups. The Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Article 46, place a duty on the State to advance the educational interests of socially and economically disadvantaged groups. These directives establish a constitutional foundation for affirmative action, making such measures not just allowable, but fundamentally necessary.
Further, judicial decisions have consistently held that affirmative action is not contrary to the principle of equality under Article 14. Instead, it furthers the concept of substantive equality by recognizing that formal equality treating everyone the same only serves to entrench historical inequalities. The Supreme Court has opined that true equality involves compensating for past injustices through proactive measures. This was articulated in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976), where the Court held that equality must be viewed in the context of equal opportunities, not just equal treatment.
In addition, the implementation of the creamy layer principle for OBCs prevents the more privileged individuals within the group from dominating the advantages of reservation. This approach promotes fairness within the community by ensuring that benefits are distributed more equitably among those who are truly disadvantaged.
Case Laws
1. M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963)
This landmark case was the first to articulate the constitutional boundaries of reservation. The Supreme Court ruled that caste alone cannot be used as the exclusive basis for identifying backwardness and emphasized that reservation limits must not surpass 50%.The judgment read Article 15(4) as an enabling provision, not a carte blanche for indefinite affirmative action. The Court introduced the idea that backwardness should be based on social and educational factors, not merely economic ones, and called for objective criteria in identification.
“The classification must be based on objective criteria, and caste alone cannot be a decisive factor.” — M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649.
2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
This was a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law. The Court affirmed that providing 27% reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government employment is constitutionally valid and laid down key principles, including:
Creamy Layer: Exclusion of advanced sections within OBCs.
50% Ceiling Rule: Reservation should not exceed 50%, barring extraordinary circumstances.
No Reservations in Promotions: Affirmative action limited to initial appointments.
The Court clarified that Article 16(4) is not a fundamental right but an enabling provision, underscoring the discretionary nature of reservation policy.
3. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)
This case validated the 93rd Constitutional Amendment, which inserted Article 15(5), allowing for OBC reservations in private unaided institutions, except minority institutions. The Court reiterated the validity of the creamy layer exclusion and called for periodic revision of backward class lists. It balanced the rights under Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to carry on any occupation) with the compelling state interest in achieving social justice.
4. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)
This case considered the extension of the creamy layer doctrine to SC/ST categories in promotions. The Court observed that creamy layer exclusion should be applied to ensure that the benefits reach the most disadvantaged, thus tilting toward a rational classification even within reserved categories.
5. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)
This judgment upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced a 10% EWS quota. The Court ruled that economic criteria can form a valid basis for classification and that exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs from EWS does not violate the basic structure doctrine. This was a pivotal shift, indicating a move from caste-based to class-based affirmative action.
Conclusion
The constitutionality of caste-based reservations in the Indian education system is deeply entrenched in the principles of social justice, substantive equality, and inclusive development. Rooted in constitutional mandates Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 46 affirmative action policies address historic discrimination and structural inequality, particularly concerning SCs, STs, and OBCs. These policies are not arbitrary but based on reasoned classification and empirical evidence of disadvantage, satisfying the requirements of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Judicial interpretation has consistently affirmed their validity while also refining their scope. Landmark rulings such as M.R. Balaji, Indra Sawhney, Ashoka Kumar Thakur, and Janhit Abhiyan illustrate the evolution of affirmative action jurisprudence, introducing concepts like the creamy layer and economic criteria for EWS. These decisions balance the ideals of meritocracy and equality of opportunity, recognizing that unequal starting points necessitate unequal support.
However, reservations are not a panacea. They must be periodically reviewed, rationally implemented, and supplemented with broader social reforms in education, health, and economic infrastructure. The creamy layer exclusion for SC/STs, the debate around reverse discrimination, and the implementation of EWS quotas reflect the shifting contours of the reservation policy. For reservation to remain constitutionally valid and socially effective, it must continuously evolve, remaining rooted in the constitutional vision of justice social, economic, and political for all citizens.
FAQs
Q1: Are caste-based reservations constitutionally valid in India?
Yes, caste-based reservations are constitutionally valid under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution. These provisions permit the state to enact special measures for the educational and occupational advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
Q2: Does reservation violate the right to equality?
No. It promotes substantive equality, not formal equality. Reservation is recognized as a legitimate method of achieving real equality by addressing systemic disadvantages.
Q3: What is the “creamy layer” and who does it apply to?
The “creamy layer” principle removes the wealthier and more socially forward individuals within the OBC category from eligibility for reservation benefits. This mechanism is intended to ensure that affirmative action reaches those who are genuinely underprivileged. However, its extension to SC/ST communities remains a subject of ongoing judicial deliberation.
Q4: How often are the backward class lists revised?
Ideally every 10 years, but delays are common due to political and administrative constraints.
Q5: Can reservations be considered reverse discrimination?
Though critics argue this, Indian courts have consistently held that affirmative action is a constitutionally valid tool to achieve substantive equality, not reverse discrimination, as long as it meets the tests of reasonableness and proportionality.
References
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1.
Balaji, M. R. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649.
Deshpande, A. (2010). The Grammar of Caste: Economic Discrimination in Contemporary India. Oxford University Press.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1540.
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396.
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2015). Report of the Expert Group on Socio-Economic and Caste Census Data. Government of India.
Rao, S. (2023). EWS Crisis: Mechanism Design for Social Justice. Retrieved from https://www.tayfunsonmez.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/EWS-Crisis-MD-for-SocialJustice.pdf
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
Sowell, T. (2004). Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study. Yale University Press.
Subramanian, N. (2010). Making Merit Count: Caste, Class, and Reservations in Indian Higher Education. International Affairs, 86(4), 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2010.523617
The Constitution of India. (1950). Government of India. The Constitution of India (Articles 15, 16, 46, 19, 30).
The 1st, 93rd, and 103rd Constitutional Amendments.
Austin, G. (1966). The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford University Press.
Basu, D. D. (2018). Introduction to the Constitution of India (24th ed.). LexisNexis.
Jain, M. P. (2021). Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed.). LexisNexis.
Planning Commission. (1980). Report of the Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission Report). Government of India.
Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. (2011). Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC). Ministry of Rural Development. https://secc.gov.in
National Commission for Backward Classes & National Commission for Scheduled Castes. (Various years). Annual Reports. Government of India. Retrieved from https://ncbc.nic.in and https://ncsc.nic.in
Sönmez, T., & Ünver, U. (2023). Market design for social justice: A case study on a constitutional crisis in India [PDF]. Boston College. https://www.tayfunsonmez.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/EWS-Crisis-MD-for-SocialJustice.pdf
Singh, A., & Kumar, P. (2010). Reservations, exclusion, and conflict: Some insights from Mandal implementation. Policy and Society, 29(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2010.5236171
National Sample Survey Office. (Various years). Reports on Education and Employment. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. Retrieved from https://mospi.gov.in
The Law Advice. (n.d.). Understanding the concept of the creamy layer in Indian reservation policy. The Law Advice. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://www.thelawadvice.com/articles/understanding-the-concept-of-the-creamy-layer-in-indian-reservation-policy
HLM Group. (2024, December 30). The evolution of the basic structure doctrine and its application in landmark cases. HLM Group Blogs. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://www.hlmgroup.org/blogs/the-evolution-of-the-basic-structure-doctrine-and-its-application-in-landmark-cases
Legitimate Scrutiny. (2025, January 28). Analyzing the impact of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019: A milestone in Indian reservation policy. Legitimate Scrutiny. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://www.legitimatescrutiny.com/post/analyzing-the-impact-of-the-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019-a-milestone-in-indian-reservat
Scribd. (n.d.). MP-1 Memorial. Scribd. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://www.scribd.com/document/433843843/Mp-1-Memorial
Hub Sociology. (n.d.). Constitutional provisions for SCs, STs, and OBCs. Hub Sociology. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://hubsociology.com/constitutional-provisions-for-scs-sts-and-obcs/
The Hans India. (2023, November 22). Constituent Assembly and the British influence. The Hans India. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://www.thehansindia.com/amp/hans/opinion/news-analysis/constituent-assembly-and-the-british-influence-975964
Atish Mathur. (n.d.). Home. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://www.atishmathur.com/
IndConLawPhil. (2014, April 6). Reservations, equality, and the Constitution VIII: Ashoka Kumar Thakur (1/5.5) and the basic structure. Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/reservations-equality-and-the-constitution-viii-ashoka-kumar-thakur-155-and-the-basic-structure/
Lawful Legal. (2023, September 12). The Mandal verdict: A legal odyssey into reservation and equality in India. Lawful Legal. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://lawfullegal.in/the-mandal-verdict-a-legal-odyssey-into-reservation-and-equality-in-india/
Lawful Legal. (2023, October 8). Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). Lawful Legal. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://lawfullegal.in/indra-sawhney-v-union-of-india-1992/
National Commission for Backward Classes. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_for_Backward_Classes
Top Rankers. (n.d.). Doctrine of basic structure: Landmark cases and features. TopRankers. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from https://www.toprankers.com/doctrine-of-basic-structure
