Reservations in India

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
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. Indra Sawhney Case (1992)
    • Upheld 27% OBC reservation.
    • Reaffirmed 50% cap, unless in exceptional circumstances.
    • Introduced the concept of creamy layer exclusion for OBCs.
  4. Janhit Abhiyan Case (2022)
    • Upheld 10% EWS quota.
    • Clarified that the 50% ceiling applies to backward class reservations; EWS is a separate category.
  5. 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
  1. 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).
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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
  1. Data-Driven Approach: Use 2027 Census (with caste enumeration) to fix quotas scientifically.
  2. Sub-Categorisation: Implement Rohini Commission recommendations to ensure equitable distribution among OBCs.
  3. Two-Tier Reservation for SCs/STs: Prioritise most marginalised within these groups.
  4. Skill Development: Complement reservations with education, training, and employability initiatives.
  5. Balanced Federal Discussion: Ensure wide consultations among political parties and states before altering reservation frameworks.
« Prev September 2025 Next »
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930