The concept of reservation is broad and can be interpreted in various ways by different individuals. One perspective views reservation as a strategy to combat poverty, while another sees it as simply granting access rights without offering a means of redress. Essentially, reservation involves setting aside a specific quota for certain groups of people. In India, the introduction of reservation aimed to promote the progress and fair representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other socially and educationally disadvantaged classes, as well as economically weaker sections.
Judicial Prospective on Reservation Policies :
The Indian Constitution, through Articles 15, 16, 17, and 46, seeks to create a society free from social injustice and exploitation, ensuring equality and inclusivity. A significant legal case on reservation is State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCC 351, where the Court invalidated a government order for caste-based reservation in medical and engineering colleges. In 1962, the State of Mysore allocated 68% of seats to various backward classes, which was contested in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 439, leading the Court to rule that reservation should not exceed 50%. In 1979, the Mandal Commission was established to identify socially and educationally backward classes in India and propose reservation policies for them.
The Mandal Commission’s recommendations faced legal challenges in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, where a 9-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the 50% reservation limit, rejected reservations in promotions, and established criteria for determining backwardness. Additionally, the Court overturned the decision in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 246, which had allowed reservations in promotions under Article 16(4). However, the Parliament, through the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, and the Constitution (Eighty-First Amendment) Act, 2000, introduced Articles 16(4-A) (Reservation in promotions with consequential seniority) and 16(4-B) (Carry forward rule), respectively. These amendments were deemed constitutional in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
In 2019, the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act was passed, enabling, but not mandating, a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections, in addition to existing reservations. The constitutional validity of this amendment was upheld by a 5-judge Constitution bench comprising UU Lalit, CJ, and Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, JB Pardiwala, JJ in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1540.
Development of Reservation Policies in India :
In the Indra Sawhney Case of 1992, the Supreme Court while upholding the 27 percent share for backward classes, struck down the government announcement reserving 10 government jobs for economically backward classes among the advanced gentries. Supreme Court in the same case also upheld the principle that the combined reservation heirs should not exceed 50 percent of India’s population.
The conception of ‘ delicate subcaste’ also gained currency through this judgment and provision that reservation for backward classes should be confined to original movables only and not extend to elevations. Lately, the indigenous( 103rd Correction) Act of 2019 has handed 10 reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for the “ economically backward ” in the unreserved order. The Act amends Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution by adding clauses empowering the government to give reservation on the base of profitable backwardness. This 10 profitable reservation is over and above the 50 reservation cap. In exercise of the powers conferred by Composition 340 of the Constitution, the President appointed a backward class commission in December 1978 under the chairmanship of B. P. Mandal. The commission was formed to determine the criteria for defining India’s “ socially and educationally backward classes ” and to recommend way to be taken for the advancement of those classes.
Contribution of Mandal Commission :
The Mandal Commission concluded that India’s population comported of roughly 52 percent OBCs, thus 27 government jobs should be reserved for them. The commission has developed eleven pointers of social, educational, and profitable backwardness. Piecemeal from relating backward classes among Hindus, the Commission has also linked backward classes amongnon-Hindus( e.g., Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and Buddhists. It has generated an each- India other backward classes( OBC) list of 3,743 gentries and a more depressed “ depressed backward classes ” list of 2,108 gentries.
Constitutional Framework regarding Reservation Policy:
Part XVI deals with reservation of SC and ST in Central and State interests. Composition 15( 4) and 16( 4) of the Constitution empowered the State and Central Governments to reserve seats in government services for the members of the SC and ST. The Constitution was amended by the Constitution( 77th Correction) Act, 1995 and a new clause( 4A) was fitted in Composition 16 to enable the government to give reservation in creation. Subsequently, clause( 4A) was modified by the Constitution( 85th Correction) Act, 2001 to give consequential caducity to SC and ST contenders promoted by giving reservation. Indigenous 81st Amendment Act, 2000 fitted Composition 16( 4 B) which enables the state to fill the unfilled vacancies of a time which are reserved for SCs STs in the succeeding time, thereby avoiding the ceiling of fifty percent reservation on total number of vacancies of that time. Composition 330 and 332 provides for specific representation through reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Parliament and in the State Legislative Assemblies singly. Article 243D provides reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Panchayat. Composition 233T provides reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every municipality. Composition 335 of the constitution says that the claims of STs and STs shall be taken into consideration constituently with the conservation of effectiveness of the administration.
Case study of Constitutional Challenges to Reservation Policies :
One of the most renowned case studies of constitutional challenges to reservation procedures in India is the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India ( 1992), generally known as the Mandal Commission case . This corner Supreme Court judgment addressed the indigenous validity of reservations for Other Backward Classes( OBCs) in public employment and shaped India’s reservation policy frame. Background – In 1979, the Alternate Backward Classes Commission, headed by B.P. Mandal, recommended 27 reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions to address social and educational backwardness.
In 1990, the V.P. Singh government enforced the Mandal Commission’s recommendations, leading to wide challenges and legal challenges, particularly from those who argued it violated equivalency principles under the Indian Constitution. – The case was brought before a nine- judge bench of the Supreme Court to examine the indigenous validity of the reservations.
Key Issues :
1. Indigenous Validity : whether the 27 reservation for OBCs violated Article 14( equivalency before law) and Article 16( equivalency of occasion in public employment).
2. Identification of OBCs Whether the criteria for relating” backward classes” were naturally sound.
3. Extent of Reservation : Whether reservations exceeding 50 of available seats or posts were admissible.
4. Economic Criteria : Whether profitable backwardness alone could justify reservations.
5. Creamy Layer : Whether reservations should count the socially and economically advanced sections among backward classes( the” delicate subcaste”).
Supreme Court’s Judgment( 1992): The Supreme Court delivered a major verdict with a 63 majority, laying down crucial principles indigenous Validity Upheld . The Court upheld the 27 reservation for OBCs in public employment under Article 16( 4), which allows the state to make vittles for reservation in favor of backward classes. Reservation was supposed a means to achieve substantial equivalency, not a violation of Article 14.
2. 50 Cap on Reservations – The Court ruled that total reservations( for SCs, STs, and OBCs) should not exceed 50 of available posts or seats, except in extraordinary circumstances, to balance merit and social justice.
3. Creamy Layer Exclusion – The Court introduced the conception of the” delicate subcaste,” directing that socially and economically advanced members of OBCs be barred from reservation benefits to insure benefits reach the most underprivileged.
4. No profitable Criteria Alone – Reservations under Composition 16( 4) must be grounded on social and educational backwardness, not solely profitable criteria. Profitable backwardness could be a factor but not the sole base.
5. No Reservation in elevations – The Court held that reservations in elevations were unconstitutional, as Composition 16( 4) applied only to cosign movables .( This was latterly capsized by the 77th indigenous Correction in 1995, allowing reservations in elevations for SCs STs.) .
6. Judicial Review – The Court emphasized that the identification of backward classes and reservation programs were subject to judicial review to insure compliance with indigenous principles.
Impact – Policy Framework The judgment handed a robust legal frame for reservations, balancing affirmative action with equivalency principles. The 50 cap and delicate subcaste conception came guiding principles for unborn programs. OBC commission enactment of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations significantly increased OBC representation in government jobs and education. Posterior emendations the judgment led to indigenous emendations, similar as the 77th emendation( 1995) for reservations in elevations and the 103rd Correction( 2019) for economically weaker sections( EWS), which introduced a 10 share but faced separate indigenous scrutiny. Social Debate – The case sparked violent debates on merit, equivalency, and social justice, with ongoing conversations about balancing affirmative action with fairness to the general order.
Significance: The Indra Sawhney case remains a foundation of India’s reservation justice. It clarified the compass of affirmative action under the Constitution, introduced the delicate subcaste principle, and set limits on reservation proportions. The ruling continues to impact policy opinions and legal challenges regarding reservations, including recent debates on EWS proportions andsub-categorization of backward classes.
Reservation policies in India, designed to uplift historically disadvantaged groups like Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), have profoundly shaped the socio-legal landscape. Enshrined in the Constitution under Articles 15 and 16, these policies provide affirmative action through quotas in education, employment, and political representation to address centuries of caste-based discrimination and socio-economic inequalities.
Socio- Legal Consequences of Reservation Policies in India :
Social Impact : Reservations have empowered marginalized communities by enhancing access to education and jobs, fostering social mobility. For instance, SC/ST reservations in higher education have increased enrollment rates, with institutions like IITs and IIMs reserving up to 27% seats for OBCs and 15% for SCs. This has created a growing middle class within these communities, challenging entrenched caste hierarchies. However, policies have also sparked social tensions. General category groups often perceive reservations as reverse discrimination, fueling protests like those by upper-caste groups against OBC quotas in the 1990s Mandal Commission era. Additionally, intra-group disparities persist, as creamy layers within reserved categories sometimes monopolize benefits, leaving the most disadvantaged underserved.
Legal Impact : Legally, reservation policies have been contentious, with landmark cases shaping their framework. The Supreme Court’s 1992 *Indra Sawhney* judgment upheld 27% OBC reservations but introduced the creamy layer exclusion and a 50% cap on total reservations, balancing affirmative action with meritocracy. Recent cases, like the 2020 *Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand*, clarified that reservations are not a fundamental right, allowing states discretion in implementation. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019) introduced a 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), expanding affirmative action beyond caste but raising debates over dilution of original intent.
Challenges and Future : While reservations have reduced inequalities, they face criticism for perpetuating caste identities and stigmatizing beneficiaries. Legal challenges continue over balancing equity and efficiency, with calls for data-driven reforms to target the neediest. As India evolves, policies must adapt to ensure inclusive growth without deepening social divides.
Criticism and Support of Reservation Policies in India :
The reservation system in India, intended to boost historically marginalized communities, has been the subject of violent debate. While it has handed benefits in some areas, the ongoing debate reflects different perspectives on its effectiveness, necessity, and impeachments.
Arguments for durability of Reservation :
Affirmative Action for Social Justice Proponents argue that affirmative action is still demanded to Address deep
confirmed social and profitable inequalities in India. Despite significant progress, marginalized communities like Scheduled classes( SCs), Scheduled Tribes( STs), and Other Backward Classes ( OBCs) continue to face distinction and lack access to education, healthcare, and profitable Opportunities. Reservation, they argue, is an essential tool for leveling the playing field and furnishing equal openings.
Literal Injustice lawyers assert that the reservation system helps requital the literal injustice faced by certain communities due to the estate system and untouchability. The heritage of social rejection Still impacts these communities, and the durability of reservations is seen as necessary to combat systemic marginalization. Social Addition and representation Reservation ensures that marginalized groups are represented in educational institutions, Government jobs, and politics, promoting social addition. Proponents argue that without reservation, these communities would remain speechless in decision- making processes, further rooting their socio- profitable difference.
Arguments Against durability of Reservation :
Immortalizing class- Grounded Divisions Critics argue that the reservation system perpetuates class- grounded divisions, as it continues to define and classify individualities grounded on their class. This can lead to a class-conscious society, where individualities are primarily shaped by class rather than merit, capability, or individual achievement. Critics contend that this undermines public concinnity and fosters social pressure.
Meritocracy and Development :A significant review of the reservation system is that it undermines merit- grounded development. Reservation proportions, critics argue, may allow individualities to gain educational and employment openings without the needed qualifications or capabilities. This can lower norms in education and employment and compromise the quality of work in critical sectors, similar as drug, engineering, and administration, eventually affecting the nation’s development. Shift Toward profitable Addition Critics suggest that rather of reserving positions grounded on class, the focus should shift to profitable criteria. They argue that poverty and inequality should be the primary determinants for reservation, not class, as this approach would be more inclusive and would insure that the benefits reach the economically underprivileged, anyhow of class. Time- Bound Reservations Some argue that reservation should be time- bound and gradationally phased out as social and profitable difference reduce over time. They contend that continued reservations, especially in a growing frugality, may no longer be necessary once the targeted communities achieve equality in education, employment, and political representation.
Suggestions for Reform
Focus on Economic Criteria one key reform offer is to shift the focus of reservations from class to profitable status. This would allow reservations to reach a broader diapason of individualities in need, including those from upper- class communities who are economically underprivileged. The Economically Weaker Section( EWS) reservation introduced in 2019 is an illustration of this approach. Time- Bound and Merit- Grounded Reservations proffers suggest that reservations should be time set and periodically reviewed to assess their applicability and effectiveness. Once the targeted Communities have reached a certain position of educational and profitable development, the need for Reservations could dwindle. Advanced perpetration icing that reservations reach the truly marginalized requires better perpetration. This includes better data collection to identify the real heirs and insure the Reservation programs reach those who need them the most. Mindfulness programs and capacity , structure enterprise can also be introduced to help marginalized communities take full advantage of available openings. Translucency and Monitoring strengthening the monitoring and of the reservation system is essential to insure that benefits are not being diverted to those who are not in genuine need. Effective perpetration mechanisms can help reduce inefficiencies and corruption that have hindered the success of reservation programs in some cases.
Suggestion:
Reservation plays an important proportion in our country or the upliftment of the backward classes. It has come integral part of our country, indeed the critique it faces. Inspite of the reason intentions of this policy, numerous are there who are not getting the benefits of it and the reason is just the defective enactment. For once periods it has been made with idea to enhance weaker section of society. Why continue with such an ineffective arrangement if the reservation have made no difference in their conditions so far? The main reason is the delicate level has a monopoly on the benefits.
The reservation policy is only for those who are actually in need of it but this section being from that class or clan use it for their own betterment indeed if they’re well good in every sector for an illustration, if the person is from schedule class and his family is well sustained indeed also that person gets the reservation because of its class background and it takes down the occasion from the one who’s in factual need of that. Because of this also general order people face a big problem. The cut- off for different competitive examinations varies form class as per the reservation policy. The person who’s in general order and is well known of the subject is not named because of the cut- off for backward classes is veritably less and indeed though he or she tires so hard could not get the chance. As per the suggestion the policy should be amended in colorful ways keeping in mind for every estate or class. It should reach the person who’s in factual need of it only also this country can grow and make to progress in the society .
Conclusion:
The reservation system in India has had both beneficial and adverse effects on society. On the positive side, it has provided educational, employment, and representational opportunities to historically marginalizyed groups such as Dalits and Other Backward Classes. This initiative has contributed to narrowing the gap between the privileged and underprivileged segments of society, empowering these communities. It has enabled individuals from marginalized backgrounds to escape the cycle of poverty and discrimination. However, it is crucial to continually assess and refine the reservation policy to ensure it meets its intended goals without impeding national progress. Furthermore, a more comprehensive strategy is needed to address social inequalities and foster inclusive growth within Indian society.
Author: Mohd Sahil
Juris Centre 