Reservations in India: Constitutional Provisions, Judicial Cap, and Emerging Challenges

Why in the News?

1. A recent political debate has revived the demand for increasing reservations beyond the 50% ceiling prescribed by the Supreme Court.
2. Some states and political groups have suggested a higher quota reflecting the proportion of backward classes in society.
3. At the same time, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union government on a petition seeking a creamy layer system for SCs and STs, similar to what already exists for OBCs.
4. Both developments highlight the continuing tension between the principle of equality and the need for social justice through affirmative action.

Key Highlights

1. Constitutional Provisions
   1. Articles 15 and 16: Guarantee equality of citizens in education (Article 15) and public employment (Article 16). They also empower the state to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, OBCs, SCs, and STs.
   2. First Amendment (1951): Enabled the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
   3. 93rd Amendment (2005): Inserted Article 15(5), allowing reservations for OBCs, SCs, and STs in educational institutions, including private ones.
   4. 103rd Amendment (2019): Inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6), providing up to 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among the unreserved category in education and employment.
2. Judicial Interpretations
   1. Balaji vs State of Mysore (1962)
      1. Ruled that reservations must remain within reasonable limits (not exceeding 50%).
      2. Reasonable limits: The court argued that if reservations go beyond 50%, it could compromise the rights of the majority and disturb the balance between equality and social justice.
   2. State of Kerala vs N. M. Thomas (1975)
      1. Stressed the idea of substantive equality, meaning that mere formal equality (treating everyone the same) is insufficient.
      2. Substantive equality: Recognizes historical disadvantages and seeks to provide real, effective equality by compensating disadvantaged groups through affirmative action.
   3. Indra Sawhney Case (1992)
      1. Upheld 27% OBC reservation and reaffirmed the 50% ceiling unless exceptional circumstances exist.
      2. Introduced the principle of creamy layer for OBCs.

• Creamy layer: Refers to the relatively better-off members of backward classes who are excluded from reservation benefits to ensure that the truly disadvantaged sections benefit.

1. Janhit Abhiyan Case (2022)
   1. Upheld the validity of the EWS quota.
   2. Clarified that the 50% ceiling was meant for reservations based on social and educational backwardness, while EWS is a separate category.
2. Current Status of Reservations
   7. At the central level: OBCs (27%), SCs (15%), STs (7.5%), and EWS (10%) = 5% total.
   8. States vary in reservation percentages, with some going beyond 70% due to their demographic profile.
   9. However, 40-50% of reserved posts remain vacant in central government employment, raising concerns about implementation.
3. Concentration of Benefits
   1. Rohini Commission findings:
      1. 97% of OBC reservation benefits are cornered by about 25% of OBC castes.
      2. Around 1,000 OBC sub-castes have had no representation at all.
   2. Similar concentration exists within SCs and STs, but currently there is no creamy layer exclusion for these groups.
4. Emerging Policy Debates
   1. Sub-categorisation
      1. Proposal to divide OBCs into sub-groups to ensure fair distribution of benefits.
      2. Similar ideas exist for SCs and STs through a possible two-tier reservation system prioritising the most marginalized.
   2. Caste Census
      1. A demand for a caste-based census has grown to obtain accurate data on the actual share of backward classes in the population.
      2. Such data would help design policies that are evidence-based and ensure more equitable distribution of reservation benefits.

• The upcoming 2027 Census may provide this information if caste data is included.

1. Creamy Layer for SCs and STs
   1. Debate continues on whether relatively well-off members of SC and ST communities should be excluded from reservation benefits.
   2. Proponents argue it will prevent elite capture, while critics fear it may worsen the backlog of vacancies.

Implications

1. Constitutional and Legal Implications
   1. Any move to cross the 50% cap must address the existing Supreme Court rulings.
   2. At the same time, the EWS judgment shows the court may consider flexibility in exceptional situations.
2. Social Justice
   1. Substantive equality requires targeting the most disadvantaged.
   2. Without reforms, reservation may end up benefitting the relatively better-off within marginalized groups.
3. Political Landscape
   1. Reservation remains a deeply sensitive issue linked to identity and representation.
   2. Calls for increasing quotas reflect pressures to align policy with changing social realities.
4. Economic and Employment Impact
   1. Vacant posts indicate mismatch between reservation policy and job opportunities.
   2. Without job creation and skill development, reservations alone cannot meet aspirations.
5. Future of Reservation System
   1. Sub-categorisation, creamy layer debates, and caste census data may reshape the system.
   2. A long-term vision must balance equality of opportunity with social justice.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

The reservation debate reflects the tension between formal and substantive equality. While the Constitution empowers the state to ensure social justice, the actual distribution of benefits shows wide disparities within communities. A future-oriented approach requires data from the caste census, sub-categorisation of groups, and skill development initiatives. Only then can reservations evolve into a system that empowers the most marginalized while upholding the principle of equality of opportunity.