The politics of caste based reservations in India : Justice or vote bank strategy

Author: Kasak Dubey, Swami Vivekanand University Sagar, Madhya Pradesh

To the point

The Indian Constitution enshrines the ideals of equality, social justice, and inclusivity, and to actualize these principles, it introduced caste-based reservations as a form of affirmative action. These provisions—enshrined in Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4)—were framed to uplift historically marginalized communities such as the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and later the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The original intent was clear: to correct centuries of systemic discrimination by ensuring access to education, public employment, and political representation. Far from being privileges, these reservations were to function as instruments of distributive justice, creating equitable opportunities for those historically left behind.
However, over the decades, caste-based reservation has evolved from a constitutional remedy into a contentious and politicized issue. What began as a temporary measure to promote social equity has increasingly been repurposed by political actors as a powerful vote-bank strategy. Political parties—both regional and national—have used reservation policies not only to address backwardness but also to consolidate electoral support from specific caste groups. Instead of being driven solely by data, need, or genuine social reform, reservation demands are often timed and tailored to coincide with election cycles, revealing a pattern of calculated political opportunism.
This trend is evident in recent agitations by communities such as the Patidars in Gujarat, Jats in Haryana, and Marathas in Maharashtra—many of whom belong to dominant or economically stable groups but now seek inclusion in the reserved categories. Their demands, frequently backed by political endorsements, reflect how deeply the reservation discourse has been absorbed into the machinery of electoral politics. Moreover, the introduction of the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), primarily benefitting upper castes, indicates a shift from caste-based justice toward class-based appeasement—again, with strong electoral undertones.
In this context, an important question arises: Is the reservation system still a mechanism of social justice, or has it largely become a political tool to secure votes? This article aims to explore this duality by analyzing the constitutional and legal framework of reservations, evaluating their political exploitation, and assessing whether the current implementation of affirmative action genuinely serves its intended purpose. Through a legal and socio-political lens, it seeks to understand whether caste-based reservation in India continues to uphold its ethical foundations or whether it has been reduced to a transactional tool in the electoral marketplace.

Use of legal jagron

The constitutional framework of India provides a robust foundation for caste-based reservations as a form of affirmative action aimed at promoting social justice and equality. The key provisions enabling reservation are found in Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. Article 15(4) and Article 15(5) empower the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), particularly in the sphere of education. This includes admissions to public and private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided, except for minority institutions protected under Article 30. Article 16(4) allows the State to provide reservations in public employment for any backward class of citizens that, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in government services. Further, Article 16(4A) and Article 16(4B), inserted through the 77th and 81st Constitutional Amendments respectively, authorize reservations in promotions for SCs and STs and the carrying forward of unfilled reserved vacancies to subsequent recruitment years. Additionally, Article 46, a Directive Principle of State Policy, urges the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs, and to protect them from social injustice and exploitation.

The scope of application of these constitutional provisions is widespread. Caste-based reservations are primarily applicable in public employment, including jobs in the central and state governments, public sector undertakings (PSUs), and other government-owned institutions. The policy also applies to admissions in educational institutions—both government-run and those receiving government aid. Following the 93rd Constitutional Amendment in 2005, Article 15(5) extended reservation to unaided private educational institutions as well, although minority-run institutions remain exempt. Moreover, Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution provide for the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies respectively, ensuring their political representation. While there is no constitutional mandate for the reservation of OBCs in legislative bodies, political parties often nominate OBC candidates strategically to secure caste-based electoral support.

At the grassroots level, Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution mandate reservations for SCs, STs, and women in Panchayati Raj institutions and Municipalities. Several states have also enacted laws extending reservations to OBCs in local self-governance bodies. In addition to employment and education, the government provides a range of welfare schemes—including scholarships, fellowships, hostels, and coaching programs—targeted specifically at backward communities.

However, there are notable areas where caste-based reservations are not yet applicable. Currently, there is no constitutional or statutory provision for reservation in the private sector, despite ongoing debates about its necessity. Similarly, caste-based quotas are not extended to appointments in the judiciary or the armed forces, except in certain civilian defence posts. Moreover, the applicability of reservation in postgraduate medical education and super-specialty courses has been subject to judicial scrutiny, with the Supreme Court limiting its scope in certain judgments.

The introduction of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment in 2019 marked a significant shift by inserting Articles 15(6) and 16(6), providing for 10% reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from the general (non-SC/ST/OBC) category. This is the first instance of a reservation policy based solely on economic criteria, reflecting an evolving approach to affirmative action that moves beyond caste while still sparking significant legal and political debate.

The proof

The evolution of caste-based reservation in India has been shaped by key constitutional developments, government reports, and landmark judicial decisions. Among the most influential contributions is the Mandal Commission Report (1980), officially known as the Second Backward Classes Commission. Headed by B.P. Mandal, the Commission conducted a detailed socio-economic survey and recommended that 27% of government jobs and seats in public educational institutions be reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), in addition to the existing quotas for SCs and STs. The implementation of these recommendations by the V.P. Singh government in 1990 triggered widespread national protests and significantly reshaped caste politics in India, bringing OBCs to the forefront of political mobilization.”

Judicial scrutiny followed soon after in the landmark case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of OBC reservation but imposed a ceiling of 50% on total reservations. The Court also prohibited reservations in promotions, though this was later addressed by constitutional amendments. The 77th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1995 introduced Article 16(4A), enabling the provision of reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in public employment. The 81st and 85th Amendments further reinforced this by permitting the carry-forward of unfilled reserved vacancies and enabling consequential seniority.

A more recent and significant shift occurred with the enactment of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from the general category. This amendment inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) into the Constitution and marked a departure from caste-based affirmative action by basing reservation solely on economic disadvantage. In the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the EWS quota, affirming that economic criteria could form the basis of reservation without violating the basic structure of the Constitution.

In addition, the M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) judgment upheld the constitutionality of reservation in promotions but required the State to provide evidence of backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and maintenance of administrative efficiency. Later, in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), the Court diluted these requirements by ruling that the State need not collect quantifiable data on backwardness for SCs and STs in promotions, as their historical disadvantage was already established.

These developments illustrate the ongoing tension between the objectives of social justice and the need to balance merit, efficiency, and equality. They also reveal how political motivations often drive the timing and nature of reservation expansions. For instance, the introduction of the EWS quota just months before the 2019 general elections raised questions about its electoral significance. Similarly, periodic demands by politically influential communities like the Marathas, Patidars, and Jats for inclusion in OBC or EWS categories highlight how the reservation policy is increasingly becoming a tool for political negotiation rather than purely a constitutional mandate for equality.

Abstract

Caste-based reservation in India was originally conceptualized as a constitutional mechanism to address centuries of social exclusion and systemic inequality faced by historically marginalized communities, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Grounded in the principles of social justice, equality, and affirmative action, these provisions were intended to function as corrective measures within public employment, education, and political representation. However, over time, the reservation system has undergone significant transformation—not only in its legal structure but also in its political purpose.

This article critically examines the growing politicization of caste-based reservation and the extent to which it has been repurposed as a vote-bank strategy by political actors. It explores the legal and constitutional framework of reservations, including Articles 15, 16, and related amendments, and discusses their applicability across sectors such as public employment, education, and legislative representation. This article examines the evolving contours of affirmative action in India through landmark judicial decisions—including Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, Jarnail Singh, and Janhit Abhiyan—with particular focus on the recent introduction of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota based on economic criteria.”

The discussion highlights how caste-based reservation, though still relevant for achieving substantive equality, is increasingly influenced by electoral calculations. Demands by politically dominant communities for inclusion in reserved categories and the strategic timing of quota announcements reveal a pattern of opportunistic politics. As a result, the line between social justice and political expediency is becoming increasingly blurred.

This article concludes that while the reservation policy remains a crucial tool for empowerment, there is an urgent need to depoliticize its implementation. A data-driven, transparent, and constitutionally sound approach—free from electoral compulsions—is essential to restore public trust and uphold the original spirit of affirmative action in a truly democratic society.

Case Laws

1. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Mandal Case

This landmark nine-judge bench judgment upheld the constitutionality of the Mandal Commission recommendations, allowing 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment. However, the Court imposed a 50% ceiling on total reservations (unless in extraordinary circumstances), disallowed reservation in promotions, and emphasized the need for social and educational backwardness—not solely caste-based identification. The judgment firmly established that affirmative action is constitutionally valid but must balance equality of opportunity and administrative efficiency.

2. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

This case dealt with the constitutional validity of amendments allowing reservation in promotions (Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B)). The Supreme Court upheld the amendments but introduced three important conditions: the State must demonstrate (i) backwardness of the class, (ii) inadequate representation, and (iii) maintenance of administrative efficiency. This case added a layer of accountability and evidence-based policy to reservation in promotions.

3. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

This recent five-judge bench decision upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from the general category (i.e., non-SC/ST/OBC communities). The Court held that reservation based solely on economic criteria does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. It further ruled that the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota does not make the provision discriminatory.”
This judgment significantly broadened the framework of reservations in India and highlighted the shift from purely caste-based to class-based affirmative action.

Conclusion

Caste-based reservation in India was introduced as a transformative constitutional tool to rectify historical injustices and promote inclusive development. Over the years, it has played a crucial role in improving access to education, employment, and political participation for historically marginalized communities, particularly Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). However, as highlighted in this article, the policy has gradually become entangled with electoral interests. Political parties have frequently used reservation as a strategy to secure caste-based vote banks, often sidelining its core objective of social justice.
Judicial interventions in landmark cases such as Indra Sawhney, M. Nagaraj, and Janhit Abhiyan have upheld the principle of affirmative action while placing constitutional checks to prevent misuse. The inclusion of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota marked a significant shift—recognizing economic disadvantage beyond caste boundaries and signaling an evolution in the reservation discourse. Despite these developments, the fundamental challenge persists: reservation policies are often guided more by political compulsions than by data-driven, equitable frameworks.
To realign with the original intent of affirmative action, India must adopt a comprehensive and transparent reservation policy based on empirical socio-economic data. A nationwide caste-based census would provide a clearer picture of contemporary backwardness and representation. Policies must be framed using objective, non-partisan criteria, and reviewed periodically to ensure that benefits are reaching the truly disadvantaged.
Furthermore, the approach to social justice must go beyond quotas. Long-term solutions should focus on strengthening public education, healthcare, skill development, and employment infrastructure. Such reforms address the root causes of inequality and reduce overdependence on reservations. Most importantly, there is a need for strong political will to depoliticize reservation and treat it not as a tool of appeasement, but as a constitutional commitment to equity and empowerment.
In essence, reservation must return to its foundational purpose—ensuring justice for the marginalized, not serving as a shortcut to electoral success. The future of India’s democracy lies in creating evidence-based, inclusive, and fair governance, where affirmative action is implemented with integrity and foresight.

FAQS

1. What is the primary objective of caste-based reservation in India?

The primary objective is to ensure social justice and equality of opportunity by uplifting historically disadvantaged communities such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). It aims to address systemic social exclusion and underrepresentation in education, employment, and politics.

2. Is reservation in India purely based on caste?

Not entirely. While caste has traditionally been the main basis, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019) introduced a 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), extending reservation benefits to economically disadvantaged individuals from the general (non-SC/ST/OBC) category.


3. What is meant by the “vote-bank strategy” in the context of reservation?

“Vote-bank strategy” refers to the politicization of reservation policies where political parties offer or expand quotas to specific caste groups primarily to gain electoral support, rather than addressing genuine social or economic backwardness.