India’s reservation system, a framework designed to uplift historically marginalized communities, is perhaps the most hotly debated and emotionally charged issue in the country’s political and social landscape.
The system is still a contentious issue more than 70 years after independence, with accusations that it both advances justice and maintains inequity. This article cuts through jargon to present an unvarnished perspective on reservations, including their history, development, sociopolitical ramifications, and if they are still being used for the intended purpose.
India’s reservation system is a constitutional pledge to attain substantive equality, not just a social policy. Reservation has developed through a number of significant court rulings, constitutional changes, and legislative actions. It is based on the principles of justice, liberty, and fraternity that are established in the Preamble to the Constitution. This article examines the origins, development, and present legal framework of India’s reservation system in great depth.[1]
Similar to the caste system itself, reservation was introduced in India to address a particular situation. Over time, the caste system which was intended to be a division of occupations took an ugly turn. Restricted class mixing created an uncomfortable atmosphere of hostility and resulted in untouchability and other social ills. Caste, creed, and religion-based societal discrimination is undeniably one of the most barbaric and wicked practices in human society.[2]
The roots of this system trace back to pre-independence India. Visionaries like Jyotirao Phule, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, and others highlighted the grotesque inequalities embedded in India’s caste system. Dalit, Adivasis, and other marginalized groups were systematically denied access to education, employment and dignity.
In order to remedy these past injustices, the Indian Constitution of 1950 established affirmative action for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Other Backward Classes (OBCs) were later included by the Mandal Commission in the 1980s, which recommended a 27% quota in government employment and public universities. This recommendation sparked widespread protests and political realignment.[3]
Initial intention: To create an equitable society by giving opportunities to those denied them for centuries.
Where it stands today: A Complex Web
As of 2025, the reservation pie looks roughly like this:
- 15% for SCs
- 7.5% for STs
- 27% for OBCs
- 10% for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of upper castes (introduced in 2019)
- 50%+ total, with some states exceeding this under special provisions
Merit vs. Mandate
Reservations, according to critics, undermine meritocracy. “Shouldn’t selection be based on capability rather than caste?” is a recurring refrain. This argument ignores the fundamental inequity in the playing field, even though it seems sense on paper. Compared to an upper-caste metropolitan student, a Dalit student from a rural village lacks the same social capital, financial assistance, and educational opportunities.
But the opposite is also true: decades of reservation have produced a “creamy layer”—wealthier members of reserved groups who continue to reap disproportionate benefits, frequently at the expense of their less fortunate counterparts.[4]
The Politics Of ‘Quota’
Let’s face it, reservations are today less about justice and more about vote banks. Quotas have been used by all political parties, regardless of ideology, to strengthen support based on caste. This change is exemplified by the recent calls for inclusion made by comparatively dominant groups such as the Patels (Gujarat), Marathas (Maharashtra), and Jat’s (Haryana). When formerly privileged groups begin to demand reservations, it indicates a political tool rather than a social one.
Instead than addressing the baker, we are seeing “reservation inflation”—more groups vying for a piece of the pie.[5]
Education and employment: the data dilemma
Results from the data are mixed:
The number of SC/ST students attending universities has dramatically increased. Even in prestigious universities, caste-based prejudice still affects many students, and dropout rates are still high.
At lower levels of government employment (Group C/D), representation has improved; nevertheless, at higher levels (IAS, IFS, judiciary, academia), it is still lacking because reservations are not required in the private sector, SCs, STs, and OBCs are glaringly underrepresented in corporate leadership positions.
It is obvious that centuries of exclusion cannot be ended by the reservation system alone. It needs to be combined with economic empowerment, high-quality education, and anti-discrimination laws.
Due to significant entry-level differences, several prestigious universities, including IITs, IIMs, and AIIMS, have voiced concerns about peer pressure and academic standards.
When seniority and merit are disregarded in promotions within government agencies, it frequently affects morale and efficiency.
Criticism: Although inclusiveness is important, sacrificing quality over time can have negative effects on innovation and governance.[6]
Constitutional Basis of Reservation
The Constitution of India explicitly provides for affirmative action, especially in the fields of education, employment, and political representation. The following provisions form the backbone of India’s reservation laws:
a. Article 15(4) and 15(5): Educational Institutions
- Article 15(4) (added by the First Amendment, 1951) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), SCs, and STs.[7]
- Article 15(5) (added by the 93rd Amendment, 2005) allows reservation in private unaided educational institutions, except minority institutions.[8]
b. Article 16(4) and 16(4A): Public Employment
- Article 16(4) permits the state to provide reservation in public employment for any backward class that is not adequately represented in the services under the state.
- Article 16(4A) (inserted by the 77th Amendment, 1995) allows reservation in promotions for SCs and STs in public employment.
c. Article 46: Directive Principles of State Policy
- Directs the state to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, especially SCs and STs.
Landmark Judgement
One of the most highlighted cases under Indian Constitutional law was Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) also referred to as the Mandal Case
- Background
The Mandal Commission, officially the Second Backward Classes Commission, was established in 1979 under B.P. Mandal to identify the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in India. The Commission submitted its report in 1980, recommending 27% reservation in government jobs and public sector undertakings for OBCs, in addition to the existing 22.5% for SCs and STs—bringing the total to 49.5%.
In 1990, Prime Minister V.P. Singh announced the implementation of these recommendations, triggering nationwide protests, including student self-immolations, riots, and court challenges.
Important decisions:
Upheld the Mandal Commission’s 27% OBC reservation - 50% maximum reservation amount (may be surpassed in special circumstances). Promotional reservations were later lifted for SCs and STs through constitution introduced the idea that OBCs in the “creamy layer” should not receive benefits because they are more economically developed.
Constitutional Amendments and Legislative Developments
a. 77th Amendment (1995)
Enabled reservation in promotion for SCs and STs.
b. 81st Amendment (2000)
Allowed states to fill backlog vacancies in reserved categories.
c. 93rd Amendment (2005)
Empowered the state to make reservations in private unaided educational institutions (excluding minority-run ones).[9]
d. 103rd Amendment (2019)
Introduced 10% reservation for EWS in education and public employment
Legal controversies and challenges
- The 50% Ceiling Debate
The 50% cap on reservation, set in Indra Sawhney, is increasingly under strain.
States like Tamil Nadu (69%), Maharashtra, and Rajasthan have pushed for quotas beyond this limit, leading to legal and constitutional conflicts.
- The Maratha Quota Case
Based on the recommendations of the Gaikwad Commission, the Maharashtra legislature passed the SEBC Act in 2018, which gave Marathas a sixteen percent reservation in public jobs and education. Later, the Bombay High Court lowered the quota to 13% employment and 12% education.
However, due to insufficient supporting evidence, the Bombay High Court halted the previous ordinance and the ESBC Act. The court accepted the Commission’s quantitative data in support of the 2018 Act, which revived the quota system
Beyond 50% Quota: The key legal concern is still whether there are enough “exceptional circumstances” to support going beyond the cap. In 2021, the SC ruled that the Marathas were ineligible.
State vs. Central Listing Power: Following the 102nd Amendment, the Central government is solely responsible for identifying SEBCs. The state cannot unilaterally grant SEBC status; it may only recommend.
Exceptional Circumstances Test: The main focus of the ongoing legal dispute is whether the 2024 commission report provides a more solid evidence base to support a 10% limit.[10]
2018 SEBC Law granting Maratha reservation (16%) was struck down in 2021 for breaching constitutional caps and not meeting legal criteria for backwardness.
2024 SEBC Law, limiting quota to 10%, is under judicial scrutiny; Bombay HC has allowed it on an interim basis, while the Supreme Court has demanded expedited hearing.
The court is now asked to assess whether the 2024 commission report constitutes valid exceptional circumstances and whether the state can legislate SEBC status in light of Central authority.
c. Lack of Uniformity
- There is no uniform definition of backwardness across states.
- Creamy Layer Exclusion applies to OBCs, but not yet firmly to SCs/STs—raising concerns about fair distribution of benefits.
- A. Creamy Layer in OBC
The Supreme Court introduced the “creamy layer” concept to exclude wealthier OBCs from benefits — but this doesn’t apply to SCs/STs, despite obvious intra-caste inequalities.[11]
Children of bureaucrats, politicians, and professionals continue to benefit, often cornering the majority of reserved opportunities. - B. Ineffective Targeting
The reservation system does not differentiate between the most deprived and the relatively well-off within reserved categories.Critique: A more nuanced model perhaps a hybrid of caste and economic criteria could ensure fairer distribution and reduce resentment.
Conclusion: A Balancing Act
Legally speaking, the conflict between formal and substantive equality is reflected in India’s reservation system. The courts have been essential in striking a balance between administrative effectiveness and social justice, as well as between individual merit and group advancement. Although the system has changed from being caste-based to taking economic factors into account, it still has problems with over-inclusion, politicization, and an overabundance of judges.
Ultimately, reservations are a dynamic constitutional tool that can be reinterpreted as India’s social, political, and economic landscape changes rather than being a fixed legal concept. The legal system must make sure that reservations continue to be a tool for attaining justice rather than a goal unto itself.
By no means is the Indian reservation system flawless. It has fostered political manipulation, reliance, and inefficiencies. However, it would be a cruel injustice to dismantle it without addressing the underlying caste and class disparities. The EWS case shown that exceptions are acceptable if well justified, hence the 50% cap is no longer absolute.
Any quota increase, though, ought to be supported by concrete evidence rather than political pressure.
A more dynamic reservation approach based on caste + economic + gender + regional deprivation, improved statistics on social backwardness, and a caste census are all being called for more and more.
The growing gap between rural and urban areas and migration concerns are the main causes of the issue, not the boundaries between the categories. A general category person in a rural Indian hamlet is suffering in the same way as members of the lower classes. Therefore, bridging the gap between rural and urban India is the answer, and this can be achieved by focusing on the rural setup and giving them access to all the necessities. In this manner, we may lessen the concentration of power in a small number of hands and support the rural society, which is the weakest segment.
India needs better reservation—targeted, accountable, and in line with larger social reform—rather than more or less reservation. Reservation is still an essential but flawed tool until caste no longer dictates destiny in India.[12]
“Until those who are not impacted are as indignant as those who are, justice will not be done.”
– Benjamin Franklin
[1] [ignoucorner.com]
[2] https://lawtimesjournal.in/an-analysis-of-reservation-in-india/
[3] Legalserviceindia.com
[4] Coursesxpert.com
[5] Lafullegal.in//perpetuation of caste divides & identity politics
[6] Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,2008)
[7] M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963)
[9] Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)
[10] https://www.scobserver.in/journal/maratha-reservation-judicial-review-
[11] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles//
[12] https://lawtimesjournal.in/an-analysis-of-reservation-in-india/
Author: Aditi Nigam
Juris Centre 