Abstract
Reservation in India is an affirmative action policy rooted in constitutional philosophy to promote substantive equality and social justice. It aims to empower historically marginalized communities such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Over the years, the Supreme Court has shaped the contours of reservation by interpreting Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, introducing concepts such as the “creamy layer,” the “50% ceiling rule,” and the requirement of quantifiable data for reservation in promotions. The judicial approach has oscillated between protecting the rights of disadvantaged groups and upholding the principle of equality of opportunity. Recent developments, including the 103rd Constitutional Amendment introducing 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), reflect an evolving balance between social justice and constitutional limits.
Introduction
The Indian Constitution is not a mere legal document but a charter of social revolution. The framers recognized that formal equality alone could not address centuries of caste-based discrimination and structural inequality. Therefore, special provisions under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) were incorporated to enable the State to provide reservation in education and employment for socially and educationally backward classes.
While reservation was initially envisaged as a temporary measure for ten years, its continuance reflects persistent social and economic disparities. Judicial interpretation has been central in defining its scope sometimes expanding its reach, at other times placing restrictions to maintain a balance between affirmative action and meritocracy.
Legal Jargon (Simplified)
• Affirmative Action: Positive steps taken by the State to promote equal opportunities for disadvantaged groups.
• Creamy Layer: The relatively well-off section within OBCs, excluded from reservation benefits.
• 50% Ceiling Rule: A judicially imposed limit that total reservations should not ordinarily exceed 50%.
• Backwardness: A constitutionally recognized socio-educational disadvantage justifying affirmative action.
• EWS Quota: A 10% reservation introduced by the 103rd Amendment for economically weaker individuals outside SC, ST, and OBC categories.
• Quantifiable Data: Statistical proof required to justify reservation in promotions.
The Proof: Constitutional Mandates and Judicial interpretation
Constitutional Framework
• Article 14 guarantees equality before law.
• Article 15(4) and 15(5) empower the State to provide reservation in educational institutions.
• Article 16(4) enables reservation in public employment for backward classes not adequately represented.
• Article 16(4A) allows reservation in promotions for SCs and STs.
• 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019) introduced Article 15(6) and 16(6), enabling 10% reservation for EWS.
Thus, the Constitution itself envisions a flexible equality principle—permitting differential treatment where necessary for social justice.
Landmark Judicial Pronouncements
1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
The Supreme Court struck down caste-based communal reservation, holding it violated Article 15(1). This decision led to the First Constitutional Amendment, introducing Article 15(4).
2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – The Mandal Commission Case
A nine-judge bench upheld 27% OBC reservation but laid down vital principles:
• Exclusion of the creamy layer among OBCs.
• Reservation not to exceed 50%, barring exceptional circumstances.
• No reservation in promotions (later reversed by constitutional amendments).
3. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)
The Court upheld constitutional amendments allowing reservation in promotions for SCs and STs but insisted on three conditions:
• Quantifiable data on backwardness.
• Proof of inadequate representation.
• Maintenance of administrative efficiency.
4. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)
The Court struck down the need to prove backwardness of SCs and STs in promotions but reaffirmed the requirement of quantifiable data.
5. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)
The Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Amendment, validating 10% EWS reservation. The Court accepted economic criteria as a standalone basis for affirmative action, though critics argue it dilutes caste-based justice.
Judicial Trends
• From Formal to Substantive Equality: Courts recognize that treating unequals equally perpetuates inequality.
• Balancing Act: While validating reservations, courts stress merit, efficiency, and the rights of non-beneficiaries.
• Empirical Basis: Increasing insistence on data-driven justification prevents politically motivated quotas.
• Expansion of Grounds: Recognition of economic weakness (EWS) shows a shift from purely caste-based criteria.
• Flexibility in Ceiling: Though the 50% limit is treated as sacrosanct, exceptions like Tamil Nadu’s 69% quota continue to challenge its rigidity.
Conclusion
Reservation policy in India is a constitutional necessity born from the ideals of social justice and substantive equality. Over time, judicial intervention has ensured that reservations remain targeted, proportionate, and evidence-based. While the judiciary has imposed doctrinal checks such as the creamy layer and 50% ceiling, it has also adapted to socio-political realities, as seen in the acceptance of EWS reservation.
The future of reservation lies in striking a balance: ensuring representation of marginalized groups while not undermining merit and efficiency. Periodic reviews, empirical data, and transparent implementation are essential to keep the policy aligned with constitutional values.
References
1. Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 15, 16.
2. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226.
3. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
4. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
5. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396.
6. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 1540.
7. Basu, D.D. Commentary on the Constitution of India.
8. Austin, Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: Is reservation permanent in India?
No. It was initially meant as a temporary measure but has been extended periodically due to continuing inequalities.
Q2: Can reservation exceed 50%?
Generally no, but exceptions exist, such as Tamil Nadu’s 69% reservation, which operates under the Ninth Schedule.
Q3: What is the creamy layer concept?
It excludes relatively affluent OBCs from reservation benefits to ensure only genuinely disadvantaged sections benefit.
Q4: Is economic reservation valid?
Yes. The Supreme Court in 2022 upheld the 103rd Amendment providing 10% EWS reservation.
Q5: Do SCs and STs face creamy layer exclusion?
Currently, the creamy layer applies only to OBCs. However, debates continue on whether it should extend to SCs and STs.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
