India’s reservation policies, rooted in the constitutional mandate to address historical injustices and promote equality, have been a cornerstone of the nation’s social justice framework. Enshrined under Articles 15, 16, and 46 of the Constitution, these policies aim to uplift marginalized communities, particularly Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The introduction of the 10% Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment in 2019 further expanded this framework.
However, India’s socio-economic landscape—marked by urbanization, economic growth, and evolving caste dynamics—raises critical questions about the relevance and efficacy of the current reservation system. This article argues that a comprehensive constitutional review of reservation policies is overdue, supported by judicial precedents, government reports, and contemporary realities.
The Indian Constitution provides a robust basis for affirmative action. Article 15(4) allows special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, while Article 16(4) permits reservations in public employment for underrepresented groups. Article 46, a Directive Principle, mandates the state to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections.
These provisions were initially designed to address caste-based discrimination, as affirmed in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), where the Supreme Court struck down a reservation policy for violating equality but paved the way for constitutional amendments to protect affirmative action.
The Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case, commonly known as the Mandal case, was a landmark in shaping reservation policies. The Court upheld 27% OBC reservations but imposed a 50% cap on total reservations to balance equity and merit. It also introduced the “creamy layer” concept to exclude affluent OBCs, ensuring benefits reach the most disadvantaged.
The M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) case further clarified that reservations in promotions must be justified by data on backwardness, representation, and efficiency, emphasizing constitutional checks on affirmative action.
The 103rd Amendment, introducing the EWS quota, marked a shift toward economic-based reservations. Upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), the amendment was deemed constitutional by a 3:2 Supreme Court verdict, with the majority arguing it furthers equality under Article 14 without violating the basic structure.
However, dissenting judges raised concerns about excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota, questioning its alignment with the Constitution’s caste-centric affirmative action framework. These judicial interpretations highlight the evolving nature of reservation policies but also expose inconsistencies requiring review.
India’s socio-economic landscape has transformed significantly since the Constitution’s adoption. The 2011 Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) revealed that 73% of Indian households are rural, with many SCs and STs still facing systemic deprivation. However, urbanization and economic growth have created new dynamics.
The Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2022-23 by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation shows rising urban employment and a growing middle class among OBCs, indicating varying levels of backwardness within reserved categories. This suggests that a one-size-fits-all reservation policy may no longer address contemporary inequalities effectively.
The creamy layer principle, intended to exclude affluent beneficiaries, is inconsistently applied. The Indra Sawhney judgment mandated its use for OBCs, but SCs and STs are exempt, leading to elite capture within these groups. A 2018 government report by the Department of Personnel and Training noted that 97% of central government jobs under SC/ST quotas were secured by urban candidates, often from relatively privileged backgrounds. This misalignment calls for a review to ensure reservations target the most marginalized, as envisioned by Article 46.
The EWS quota further complicates the framework. The Janhit Abhiyan case acknowledged economic deprivation as a valid criterion for affirmative action, but the quota’s exclusion of reserved categories risks creating new inequities.
A 2023 report by the National Commission for Backward Classes highlighted that OBCs, despite comprising 52% of the population (per SECC estimates), are underrepresented in higher education due to limited access to EWS benefits. A constitutional review could harmonize caste- and economic-based reservations to align with Articles 15 and 16. The judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping reservation policies, but its interventions sometimes border on overreach, creating policy fragmentation.
In Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister (2021), the Supreme Court struck down Maharashtra’s Maratha reservation for exceeding the 50% cap, reaffirming Indra Sawhney. However, the Court’s insistence on quantifiable data for backwardness places a heavy burden on states, often leading to inconsistent policy implementation across regions.
The M. Nagaraj case introduced stringent conditions for reservations in promotions, but its application has led to disputes over data collection. A 2019 government report by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment noted that states lack standardized metrics for assessing backwardness, resulting in legal challenges and policy delays. A constitutional review could establish uniform guidelines, balancing judicial oversight with legislative autonomy, as mandated by the separation of powers doctrine.
Reservation policies have become a lightning rod for political polarization, undermining the Constitution’s vision of fraternity under Article 51A(e). The demand for a caste census, supported by opposition parties and some state governments, aims to update reservation frameworks but risks deepening caste divisions. The 2021 National Commission for Scheduled Castes report warned that caste-based mobilization could exacerbate social tensions, citing incidents of inter-community violence over quota demands.
The EWS quota, while intended to address economic inequality, has fueled perceptions of favoritism toward upper castes. A 2022 survey by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies found that 62% of SC/ST respondents viewed the EWS quota as discriminatory, highlighting social discontent. A constitutional review could depoliticize reservations by establishing a transparent, data-driven framework, fostering social cohesion while upholding Article 14’s equality guarantee.
A comprehensive review of reservation policies is essential to address these challenges. First, it could redefine backwardness using contemporary data, as recommended by the 2018 Justice G. Rohini Commission, which proposed sub-categorizing OBCs to ensure equitable benefit distribution.
Second, it could extend the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs, aligning with Indra Sawhney’s emphasis on targeting the most disadvantaged. Third, it could integrate caste- and economic-based reservations into a cohesive framework, addressing Janhit Abhiyan’s concerns about exclusionary criteria.
The review process should involve a parliamentary committee, judicial experts, and social scientists, drawing on government reports like the SECC and PLFS. It must balance the Constitution’s commitment to equality (Article 14), affirmative action (Articles 15, 16), and social justice (Article 46) with the realities of a changing India. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, which defined the basic structure doctrine, underscores that any reform must preserve constitutional essentials like equality and justice.
India’s reservation policies, while transformative, are at a crossroads. Judicial precedents like Indra Sawhney, M. Nagaraj and Janhit Abhiyan highlight the need for clarity and coherence, while government reports underscore misalignments with socio-economic realities. Urbanization, economic growth, and political polarization demand a recalibration of affirmative action to ensure it serves the most marginalized without fostering division.
A constitutional review, grounded in data and dialogue, is not just timely but imperative to uphold the Constitution’s vision of a just and equitable society. As India navigates its path toward inclusive development, revisiting reservation policies will be a critical step in honoring the constitutional promise of equality for all.
(The Author is Advocate, Supreme Court of India. Feedback: [email protected])
