Author: Ritika Singh, Jaipur National University
Abstract
Since independence, India’s reservation policy has continued to be one of the most contentious and delicate sociopolitical problems. Aimed initially at addressing historical injustices and promoting social justice, the reservation system has evolved into a complex web of legal challenges, political maneuvering, and societal reactions. This article explores the multifaceted dimensions of reservation, including its constitutional and legal foundations, significant judicial pronouncements, political implications, and contemporary controversies. It also examines the emerging issues surrounding EWS reservation, the demand for quota within quota, and reservations in promotions. By incorporating landmark case laws and addressing frequently asked questions, this article seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal and social politics of reservation in India.
Introduction
Reservation in India is not merely a welfare measure; it is a reflection of the constitutional promise to ensure equality and eliminate social backwardness. It refers to the process by which certain percentages of seats in education, government jobs, and legislatures are earmarked for historically disadvantaged communities, mainly Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). In recent years, the inclusion of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and growing demands for inclusion by other communities have further intensified the debate.
At the intersection of law, politics, and social justice, reservation policies often become a battleground for electoral promises, judicial scrutiny, and public discourse. While proponents argue for its necessity in correcting centuries of marginalization, critics question its continued relevance and implementation.
Legal Jargon
The legal framework surrounding the policy of reservation in India is embedded in a range of terms and concepts that shape its interpretation and implementation. Affirmative Action refers to positive steps taken by the state to increase the representation of socially and historically disadvantaged groups, particularly minorities, in education, employment, and public life. A key constitutional criterion for granting reservation is Social and Educational Backwardness, especially for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), which emphasizes a lack of access to resources and opportunities due to systemic marginalization. To ensure fairness within these backward classes, the judiciary introduced the concept of the Creamy Layer, which excludes the economically advanced among the OBCs from availing of reservation benefits, preventing undue advantage to the relatively privileged.
Further, reservations are categorized as Vertical and Horizontal. Vertical reservations are group-based and apply to categories like Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), while horizontal reservations operate across these vertical categories and include groups such as women, persons with disabilities (PwDs), and ex-servicemen. The principle of Positive Discrimination justifies such measures by recognizing the need to favor disadvantaged sections to ensure substantive equality. Another related concept is Proportional Representation, which advocates allocating opportunities based on the proportion of a community’s population. Together, these principles are governed under the Equality Code of the Indian Constitution, enshrined in Articles 14 to 18, which seek to establish a just and equitable society through both formal and substantive equality.
Constitutional and Legal Basis
The policy of reservation in India is rooted in the constitutional commitment to equality and social justice. The framers of the Constitution recognized the deep-seated inequalities in Indian society and provided specific provisions to uplift historically marginalized communities.
Article 15(4) was inserted by the First Constitutional Amendment in 1951 after the Champakam Dorairajan case.It gives the state the authority to provide specific provisions, especially in the area of education, for the advancement of SCs and STs as well as socially and educationally backward classes. The groundwork for reservations in educational institutions is laid out in this essay.
Article 16(4) provides for reservation in public employment. It states that nothing in Article 16 (which guarantees equality of opportunity) shall prevent the State from making provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens that is not adequately represented in the services under the State. This article legitimizes caste-based reservations in government jobs.
Article 16(4A), added by the 77th Constitutional Amendment in 1995, allows the State to provide reservation in promotions specifically for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, recognizing that mere entry-level reservations may not be sufficient to ensure their representation at higher levels of administration.
Article 335 aims to maintain a balance between the claims of SCs and STs in services and the need to maintain administrative efficiency. It acts as a safeguard to ensure that while reservation is provided, it should not compromise the efficiency of public administration.
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019) introduced a significant shift by providing 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among the general category, i.e., those who do not fall under SC, ST, or OBC categories. This amendment allowed the state to make special provisions for economically weaker individuals, even in private unaided educational institutions.
Initially, the Constitution only envisaged reservations for SCs and STs as a measure to rectify historical discrimination. However, with the submission of the Mandal Commission Report in 1980 and its implementation in 1990, the scope of reservations expanded to include Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This marked a watershed moment in the politics of reservation, introducing a broader understanding of backwardness and embedding caste as a key determinant of social disadvantage in public policy.
Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Case Laws
1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
This was the first major case on reservation post-independence. Caste based reservations were implemented in educational institutions by the Madras government . The Supreme Court struck it down, ruling that it violated Article 29(2), which prohibits discrimination based on caste in matters of admission to educational institutions. The judgment emphasized formal equality over compensatory justice. In response, the government passed the First Constitutional Amendment, adding Article 15(4), which empowered the state to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, thereby laying the constitutional foundation for caste-based reservation in education.
2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
This historic ruling also referred to as the Mandal Commission case, maintained the Mandal Commission’s recommended 27% OBC reservation in public employment. It introduced the ‘creamy layer’ doctrine, excluding the economically advanced within OBCs from availing reservation benefits, to ensure that the truly disadvantaged benefit. The Court also held that total reservations should not exceed 50%, except under extraordinary circumstances, establishing a constitutional ceiling that has since guided all future reservation policies.
3. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006):
This case dealt with the constitutionality of reservation in promotions under Article 16(4A). The Supreme Court upheld the validity of promoting SCs and STs in government jobs but laid down strict conditions. It ruled that the state must produce quantifiable data on (a) backwardness of the group, (b) inadequate representation, and (c) the impact on administrative efficiency. This case reaffirmed the principle that affirmative action must be evidence-based and not arbitrary.
4. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018):
This decision modified M. Nagaraj by ruling that quantifiable data on backwardness is not required for SCs/STs, as their backwardness is already constitutionally recognized. However, the Court extended the creamy layer exclusion to SCs and STs in the context of promotions, reinforcing the idea that reservation benefits must be targeted towards the genuinely underprivileged, even within constitutionally recognized categories.
5. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022):
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which eastablished a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) among the general category, was contested in this case. The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority, upheld the amendment, stating that economic criteria alone can be a valid basis for affirmative action. Additionally, it determined that going above the 50% reservation cap in this instance did not contravene the fundamental framework of the Constitution. However, the decision sparked significant debate, particularly regarding the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS quota, and whether this violates the principle of substantive equality.
Social Dimensions and Political Ramifications
The reservation policy in India, though constitutionally framed as a tool for social justice, has increasingly become entangled in the web of politics and identity-based mobilization. Its implementation and expansion have led to complex social and political consequences that continue to evolve.
1. Identity Politics:
Reservation has become a powerful instrument in the hands of political parties to mobilize caste and community-based support. Parties often make promises of new or enhanced quotas to specific groups such as the Marathas in Maharashtra, Patels in Gujarat, and Jats in Haryana to consolidate their vote banks during elections. These promises are frequently driven more by political strategy than by empirical evidence of backwardness, turning caste identity into a bargaining tool rather than a marker of genuine social disadvantage.
2. Demand for New Reservations:
In recent years, various relatively advanced communities like the Gujjars (Rajasthan), Kapus (Andhra Pradesh), and Lingayats (Karnataka) have demanded inclusion in the OBC list or reservation under the EWS category. Their agitation is often based on claims of economic hardship rather than social discrimination, leading to a shift from the original purpose of reservations, which was to address historical and systemic oppression. These demands have strained the framework of affirmative action and complicated the criteria for backwardness.
3. Quota within Quota:
A major concern within the reservation system is the unequal access among the backward classes themselves. A small number of powerful castes are said to control the majority of OBC benefits, denying the most marginalised people access. This has led to a growing demand for sub-categorization or “quota within quota” to ensure that the most backward among the backward classes receive a fair share. The Supreme Court has also supported this idea in principle, leading to proposals for restructuring OBC reservations into distinct categories such as Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs).
4. Backlash and Social Unrest:
Reservation policies have often triggered intense social conflict, both in favor and against their implementation.Violent opposition was mostly led by upper-caste youth during the anti-Mandal rallies of the 1990s, which were triggered by the Mandal Commission’s recommendations. On the other hand, agitations by Jats, Patels, and Marathas demanding reservation have also turned violent, resulting in destruction of property, loss of life, and severe law-and-order challenges. These incidents highlight the volatility and emotional intensity surrounding the reservation discourse, often fueled by perceptions of injustice and competition over limited resources.
In sum, the social and political ramifications of reservation extend far beyond legal provisions. They shape electoral strategies, influence social movements, and deeply affect the dynamics of caste, community, and class in contemporary India.
Contemporary Controversies
Reservation remains one of the most dynamic and contested areas of Indian constitutional and political discourse. In recent years, several high-profile cases and policy developments have stirred fresh debates about the scope, purpose, and limits of affirmative action.
1. Maratha Reservation Case:
In Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra (2021), the Supreme Court struck down the Maharashtra law that granted 12% reservation in education and 13% in jobs to the Maratha community under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) category. The Court ruled that the reservation breached the 50% ceiling laid down in the Indra Sawhney case (1992) and did not demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances to justify the excess. It also held that states no longer had the power to identify SEBCs after the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, leading to further controversy over the division of powers between the Centre and the states in reservation matters.
2. Reservation in Promotions:
Reservation in promotions, particularly for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), remains a contentious issue. The Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) held that such reservations are permissible but subject to conditions like the presence of quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and maintenance of administrative efficiency. However, governments often struggle to collect or justify this data, leading to frequent litigation and policy paralysis. In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), the Court clarified that the creamy layer principle also applies to promotions among SCs and STs, further complicating the implementation.
3. 10% EWS Quota:
In 2019, the 103rd Amendment to the Constitution eastablished a 10% reservation for the general category’s Economically Weaker Section (EWS).This marked a major shift by allowing economic criteria alone as the basis for reservation, diverging from the traditional focus on social and educational backwardness. In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the amendment, stating that EWS quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, even though it breached the 50% ceiling. However, the judgment sparked widespread debate. Critics argued that economic hardship is often temporary and may not justify long-term affirmative action. Others contended that excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS benefits was inherently discriminatory.
Conclusion
The politics of reservation in India is a reflection of our evolving commitment to justice, equity, and representation. While the legal framework provides a robust foundation, implementation challenges and political interests often derail the intended outcomes. The future of reservation must focus on rationalisation, data-based policy decisions, and social cohesion, rather than being driven solely by electoral calculus. A balance between affirmative action and meritocracy, and between historical redress and current realities, is essential to make reservation an effective tool of inclusive development.
FAQS
Q1. How do vertical and horizontal reservations differ from one another?
A. Vertical reservations include SC, ST, OBC, and EWS. . Horizontal cuts across these and includes women, PwDs, etc. For example, there can be a woman candidate within the OBC quota.
Q2. Is reservation in private sector legal?
A. Currently, reservation in private sector is not mandated by law, although there are policy-level discussions to encourage diversity.
Q3. Can reservation exceed 50%?
A. As per Indra Sawhney, 50% is the cap, but exceptions exist in extraordinary cases. Despite this restriction, the EWS quota was maintained.
Q4. What is the creamy layer concept?
A. It excludes the socially advanced among OBCs from reservation benefits based on income and status thresholds. Recently, it’s being discussed in context of SC/ST promotions too.
Q5. Is there a time limit on reservations?
A. The SC/ST political reservation under Article 334 was originally limited but has been extended repeatedly. No expiry has been set for other reservations.
