Author- KAUSTUBH VERMA
COLLAGE- UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES
INTRODUCTION
The Reservation Policy in India entails reserving a certain percentage of seats, up to a maximum of 50%, for specific groups such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes in government educational institutions and government jobs.
This policy has deep historical roots, tracing back to ancient times when the caste system, including practices of ‘untouchability’, was prevalent. Historically, Hindu society was stratified based on Varna, Jatis, or classes, ranked in descending order of social status: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. Additionally, there existed a group known as “untouchables” or “avarna” who were outside the Varna system and considered impure. These individuals were ostracized, forced to live outside villages, and deprived of social rights. In regions like Southern India, even the shadow of an untouchable falling on an upper-caste individual was believed to cause impurity. Untouchables faced severe restrictions on social interaction and were harshly punished, sometimes even killed, for violating social norms.
This division based on notions of purity and impurity was a harsh system that severely hindered the development and progress of lower-caste individuals. An individual’s skills and labor were disregarded purely based on their caste. Historical texts like the Mahabharata highlight instances where individuals like Karna, a Shudra, were denied opportunities and humiliated due to their caste, often being called ‘Shudra Putra’. The pervasive caste system played a significant role in the establishment and evolution of the Reservation Policy in India.
RESERVATION POLICIES IN PRE INDEPENDENCE-ERA
The legal foundation of the Reservation Policy in India can be traced back to the Government of India Act of 1919, enacted during the tumultuous period of World War I. Although the British were primarily focused on Europe during this time, they still passed significant legislation aimed at the development of India. The 1919 Act introduced several reforms for Indian governmental institutions and addressed various minority issues, including the creation of communal electorates. Despite strong criticism from Montague-Chelmsford, who viewed it as an obstacle to self-development, the communal electorates system remained because Muslims already had separate electorates established by the Minto-Morley reforms of 1909.
Following the 1919 Act, the Simon Commission was established in 1927 to review the Montague-Chelmsford reforms. After touring Indian provinces, the Commission recommended combining separate electorates with reserved seats for depressed classes, along with advocating for a wider franchise. The economic, educational, and social conditions of these depressed classes hindered their ability to vote effectively.
To evaluate and incorporate the Simon Commission’s report and proposed reforms into a new constitution, a Round Table Conference was held in London in 1931. This conference, chaired by Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, included many Indian delegates from various interest groups. During the conference, B.R. Ambedkar advocated for separate electorates for depressed classes, but Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress strongly opposed this idea. Due to Gandhi’s staunch opposition, the issue of minority representation remained unresolved at the conference.
RESERVATION POLICIES IN POST INDEPENDENCE ERA
Post-Independence, the scenario changed significantly, and the reservation policy gained even more momentum compared to the pre-Independence era. The Constituent Assembly, chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, framed the reservation policy, incorporating many articles in the Indian Constitution dedicated to this cause.
Article 15(4) – Special Provision for Advancement of Backward Classes Article 15(4) is an exception to clauses 1 and 2 of Article 15, added by the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951, following the State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan case. In this case, the Madras Government reserved seats in State Medical and Engineering colleges for different communities based on religion, caste, and race, justifying it as a means to promote social justice in line with Article 46 of the Directive Principles of State Policy. However, the Supreme Court invalidated this law because it classified students based on caste and religion irrespective of merit. To counter this decision, Article 15 was amended, empowering the state to make provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This amendment allowed the establishment of Harijan Colonies to support the interests of backward classes.
Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2006: Provision for Reservation in Private Educational Institutions (Article 15(5)) The new clause 5 states that nothing in Article 15 or sub-clause (g) of Clause 1 of Article 19 shall prevent the state from making special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in admission to educational institutions, including private ones, whether aided or unaided by the state, except for minority educational institutions as referred to in Article 30(1).
This amendment was enacted to nullify the effects of three Supreme Court decisions: TM Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, Islamic Academy v. State of Karnataka, and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra. In TM Pai and P.A. Inamdar, it was held that the state cannot reserve seats in private educational institutions. In Islamic Academy, it was determined that the state could fix quotas for admissions but not fees, and admissions should be based on common entrance tests and merit. This amendment enables the state to reserve seats for the aforementioned classes in private educational institutions, excluding minority institutions. Although this provision aids in social justice, some argue it undermines merit-based higher education and may have adverse effects on the nation’s progress, potentially serving political interests rather than educational advancement.
Reservation of Posts in Public Employment Based on Residence (Article 16(3)) Article 16(3) is an exception to clause 2 of Article 16, which prohibits discrimination based on residence. It allows Parliament to regulate the extent to which a state can reserve certain posts for its residents, recognizing valid reasons for such reservations.
Reservation for Backward Classes in Public Employment (Article 16(4)) Article 16(4) is another exception to the general rule in Articles 16(1) and (2). It empowers the state to make special provisions for reserving appointments or posts for any backward class of citizens that, in the state’s opinion, are underrepresented in public services.
Other Relevant Articles of the Indian Constitution
- Article 17: Abolishes untouchability and declares its practice as a punishable offense.
- Directive Principles of State Policy: Under Article 39-A, directs the state to ensure equal justice and free legal aid to economically backward classes, and under Article 45, mandates the state to raise the living standards and health of backward classes.
- Articles 330-342: Include special provisions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Anglo-Indians, linguistic minorities, and OBCs.
Relevance of Article 335 Article 335 acts as a balancing principle in the allocation of reserved seats. It states that while the state must consider the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for positions in public services, this should be done without compromising administrative efficiency. This provision ensures that the state’s duties do not solely favor SCs and STs based on their social standing but also take into account administrative efficacy.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENT
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India – The Mandal Case
The 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 6:3 majority, upheld the Union Government’s decision to reserve 27% of government jobs for backward classes, provided the socially advanced individuals within these classes, known as the ‘creamy layer,’ are excluded. The court ruled that reservations should apply only to initial appointments and not to promotions, and that total reservations should not exceed 50%. Consequently, the court partially validated the two contested notifications (OM) dated August 13, 1990, and September 25, 1991, with the condition that the creamy layer among backward classes be excluded. However, the court invalidated the Congress Government’s OM reserving 10% of government jobs for economically backward classes among the higher classes.
Following this landmark case, Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) were added through the 77th and 81st Amendments, respectively. Clause 4-A states that the state can make provisions for reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which are underrepresented in state services. Clause 4-B removes the 50% reservation ceiling for SCs/STs and BCs in backlog vacancies that couldn’t be filled in previous years due to a lack of eligible candidates. The 85th Amendment further modifies clause 4-A to include “promotion with consequential seniority.”
M.R. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore (AIR 1963 SC 649)
The State of Mysore issued an order declaring all communities except Brahmins as socially and educationally backward under Article 15(4) and reserved 75% of seats in educational institutions for SEBCs and SCs/STs. These orders were repetitive, issued annually with little variation. The Supreme Court, upon challenge under Article 32, struck down the order, stating that backwardness must be both social and educational. While caste is relevant for determining social backwardness among Hindus, it cannot be the sole criterion. The court also noted that reservation should be broadly defined and must be less than 50%.
State of UP v. Pradeep Tandon (AIR 1975 SC 563)
The State Government issued an order reserving seats in medical institutions for candidates from rural areas, hill areas, and Uttarakhand. The Supreme Court validated the reservations for hill areas and Uttarakhand, recognizing the lack of communication, technical processes, and educational facilities that kept these regions socially and culturally backward. However, reservations for rural area candidates were invalidated, as the distinction between rural and urban poverty was not supported by facts.
State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan ([1951] S.C.R. 525)
The Madras government issued an order enforcing communal G.O.s regarding medical college admissions, specifying proportions for different castes. Although intended to help backward classes, the Supreme Court struck down the order, deeming it unconstitutional under Articles 15(1) and 29(2).
Importance of Reservation in India
The concept of reservation was introduced to counteract longstanding discrimination and stereotyping within rural Hindu communities divided by caste. Some castes were considered superior, discriminating against lower castes.
Legal Perspective
The persistent discrimination against marginalized groups indicated their continuous oppression by higher classes. The Constitution’s framers felt the need to include these classes in the law-making process, granting them special provisions to ensure their participation. This inclusion aimed to uplift backward classes, mitigating the oppression they faced during the casteist era, by providing equal rights, opportunities, and reservations to facilitate their involvement in the country’s legal framework.
Socio-Cultural Perspective
To understand the socio-cultural basis of casteism and reservation, one must recognize the Hindu varna system, consisting initially of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas, with Shudras emerging as a fourth sect serving the higher three. Beyond these, ‘Dalits’ or untouchables were deemed impure, relegated to tasks like cremation. This practice of discrimination extended to other religions such as Christianity and Islam.
This deep-seated discrimination necessitated reservations in Indian society and culture to protect these persecuted communities, promoting their development and education, leading to the establishment of the reservation system.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. What is the reservation policy in India?
The reservation policy in India is a system of affirmative action designed to improve the educational and employment opportunities of historically disadvantaged groups, including Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
2. Who benefits from the reservation policy?
Beneficiaries of the reservation policy include:
- Scheduled Castes (SC)
- Scheduled Tribes (ST)
- Other Backward Classes (OBC)
- Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
3. What are the percentages of reservation?
- SC: 15%
- ST: 7.5%
- OBC: 27%
- EWS: 10%
These percentages can vary based on state policies.
Are there any reservations in the private sector?
Currently, reservations are not mandated in the private sector, though there are discussions and proposals about implementing them.
4. How are candidates selected under the reservation policy?
Candidates from reserved categories must meet certain relaxed criteria. For example, they might have lower cut-off marks in entrance exams or competitive exams compared to the general category.
5. What is the creamy layer in the OBC category?
The creamy layer refers to the relatively wealthier and better-educated members of the OBC category who are excluded from reservation benefits. As of now, the creamy layer cutoff is an annual income of ₹8 lakh or more.
6. What are the recent changes in the reservation policy?
Recent changes include the introduction of a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society, which applies to the general category who are economically disadvantaged.
7. What are the controversies surrounding reservation policies?
Controversies include:
- Arguments that reservations lead to reverse discrimination.
- Concerns about the efficiency and fairness in implementation.
- Debates over extending reservations to more categories or into new sectors like the private sector.
8. Is there a time limit for reservations?
Originally intended as a temporary measure, reservations have been extended repeatedly and are currently an ongoing policy without a definite end date.
9. Can reservation policies be challenged in court?
Yes, reservation policies and their implementations can be challenged in court. Several landmark judgments have shaped the current framework of reservation policies, such as the Indra Sawhney case (1992).
10. How does reservation impact the merit system?
Critics argue that reservations compromise the merit system by allowing candidates with lower qualifications to secure positions. Proponents counter that reservations are necessary for creating a level playing field and addressing historical injustices.
11. What is the role of the Supreme Court in reservation policies?
The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing reservation policies, including setting limits like the 50% cap on total reservations and defining the creamy layer.
12. Are there reservations in promotions?
Reservations in promotions are available for SC and ST categories in certain government jobs, as upheld by the Supreme Court, provided certain conditions are met, like proving inadequate representation.
Conclusion
The reservation policy in India is a complex and evolving system aimed at promoting social equality. While it has significantly improved the status of many disadvantaged communities, it continues to be a topic of intense debate and legal scrutiny.
