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).

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.