GS2 – POLITY
Context
- Tejashwi Yadav (Bihar opposition leader) promised to raise reservations to 85% if elected.
- The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union government on a petition seeking a “creamy layer” system for SCs and STs.
- Currently, central reservations: OBC – 27%, SC – 15%, ST – 7.5%, EWS – 10%, totalling 59.5%.
Constitutional Provisions (Articles 15 & 16)
- Article 15: Prohibits discrimination and allows the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, and STs.
- Article 16: Provides equality of opportunity in public employment but allows reservations for backward classes not adequately represented.
Judicial Pronouncements
- Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962)
- Reservations must be within “reasonable limits” and capped at 50%.
- Treated as an exception to equality of opportunity (formal equality).
- State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas (1975)
- Court recognised substantive equality – reservations are not an exception but a continuation of equality of opportunity.
- Did not directly address the 50% ceiling.
- Indra Sawhney Case (1992)
- Upheld 27% OBC reservation.
- Reaffirmed 50% cap, unless in exceptional circumstances.
- Introduced the concept of creamy layer exclusion for OBCs.
- Janhit Abhiyan Case (2022)
- Upheld 10% EWS quota.
- Clarified that the 50% ceiling applies to backward class reservations; EWS is a separate category.
- State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)
- Some judges emphasised the need for a creamy layer policy even for SCs and STs.
- However, the Union government rejected this idea (Aug 2024 Cabinet decision).
Key Issues
- Formal vs Substantive Equality
- Formal Equality: Equal treatment before the law (reservations seen as exceptions).
- Substantive Equality: Equity-based approach that acknowledges historical disadvantage (reservations as continuation of equality).
- 50% Cap Debate
- Supporters argue that breaching the cap undermines equality of opportunity.
- Opponents argue that the cap is arbitrary and does not reflect the demographic share of backward classes.
- Concentration of Benefits
- Rohini Commission Findings:
- 97% of OBC quota benefits go to 25% of OBC sub-castes.
- Nearly 1,000 out of 2,600 OBC communities have zero representation.
- Similar issues exist for SCs and STs due to lack of creamy layer exclusion.
- Unfilled Vacancies
- 40–50% of reserved posts for OBCs, SCs, and STs remain vacant at the central level.
- Raises concerns about implementation and access rather than just percentage allocation.
Competing Arguments
For Expanding Reservation Beyond 50%
- Reflects actual caste demographics (requires caste census).
- Substantive equality demands higher quotas to correct historical injustice.
Against Expansion
- Violates the right to equality of opportunity.
- Risks reverse discrimination against unreserved categories.
- Could reduce incentive for skill development and widen social divides.
On Creamy Layer for SCs/STs
- Pro: Ensures benefits reach the most marginalised.
- Against: Many reserved posts remain unfilled; exclusion may worsen backlog and reduce representation.
Way Forward
- Data-Driven Approach: Use 2027 Census (with caste enumeration) to fix quotas scientifically.
- Sub-Categorisation: Implement Rohini Commission recommendations to ensure equitable distribution among OBCs.
- Two-Tier Reservation for SCs/STs: Prioritise most marginalised within these groups.
- Skill Development: Complement reservations with education, training, and employability initiatives.
- Balanced Federal Discussion: Ensure wide consultations among political parties and states before altering reservation frameworks.