RESERVATIONS AND A CAP OF 50 PERCENT
- Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution uphold the principle of equality for all citizens in matters of state action, such as admissions to educational institutions and employment in the public sector.
- At the same time, these provisions empower the state to introduce special measures aimed at promoting the welfare of socially and educationally disadvantaged groups, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
- Over the years, several key developments have shaped the reservation framework at the central level.
- Currently, the reservation quotas in central government institutions are — 27% for OBCs, 15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs, and 10% for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), amounting to a total of 59.5%.
- However, the percentage of reservations differs across States depending on their population composition and specific policy decisions
- The debate stems from two different interpretations of equality — formal equality and substantive equality. In Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962), the Supreme Court held that reservations under Articles 15 and 16 for backward classes must remain “within reasonable limits” and be balanced with the overall interests of society.
- The Court also observed that reservations should not cross 50%, reflecting a notion of formal equality where reservations are treated as exceptions to equal opportunity.
- By contrast, substantive equality recognizes that merely ensuring formal equality is inadequate to bridge the historical gap between privileged groups and marginalized communities.
- In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975), a seven-judge Bench highlighted this perspective, stating that reservations are not an exception but an extension of the principle of equality. However, since the ceiling limit was not directly under consideration in this case, the Court did not make a binding pronouncement on that aspect.
- In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), a nine-judge Bench upheld the 27% quota for OBCs and ruled that caste, in the Indian context, is an indicator of social and educational backwardness.
- The Court reaffirmed the 50% ceiling on reservations (as established in Balaji) but allowed exceptions in extraordinary situations. It also introduced the concept of excluding the “creamy layer” among OBCs.
- More recently, in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), a 3:2 majority upheld the constitutionality of the 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
- The Court clarified that economic criteria could serve as the basis for affirmative action and further reasoned that the 50% limit applied to reservations for backward classes, while EWS forms a distinct category within the unreserved sections
.png)
Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination
-
Provision: Prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
-
Scope: Applies to access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, and places of public entertainment, as well as the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, etc. maintained wholly or partly out of State funds.
-
Special Provisions Allowed:
-
Reservation and special measures for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
-
Special provisions for women and children.
-
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019) introduced reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
-
Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
-
Provision: Ensures equality of opportunity for all citizens in public employment and prohibits discrimination in matters relating to employment or office under the State.
-
Special Provisions Allowed:
-
Reservation of posts in favor of backward classes not adequately represented in services.
-
Preference for residents of a State/Union Territory in certain cases.
-
Parliament may legislate for reservation in promotions (e.g., 77th Amendment, 1995 allowing reservation in promotion for SCs and STs)
-
- In his Constituent Assembly address in November 1948, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar defended the necessity of reservations for historically disadvantaged groups, emphasizing that such measures should remain limited to a minority so as to preserve the principle of equality of opportunity.
- Over time, however, there has been growing pressure to expand reservation quotas beyond the judicial ceiling of 50% so that they align more closely with the actual share of backward classes in the population.
- This has fueled demands for a caste-based census to generate reliable data rather than relying on broad estimates. Yet, government replies in Parliament reveal that 40–50% of the seats reserved for OBCs, SCs, and STs at the Central level often remain vacant.
- Another major concern is the unequal distribution of reservation benefits.
- The Rohini Commission, tasked with examining sub-categorisation within OBCs, found that nearly 97% of reserved jobs and educational seats are concentrated among about 25% of OBC communities, while close to 1,000 out of 2,600 OBC groups have no representation in either domain.
- Similar patterns are visible within SCs and STs. Unlike OBCs, there is currently no “creamy layer” exclusion for SC and ST reservations. In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), a majority of judges suggested that the Centre should consider policy measures to exclude the creamy layer from SC and ST quotas.
- Nevertheless, in August 2024, the Union Cabinet clarified that the creamy layer principle does not apply to these groups.
- Opponents of extending the creamy layer concept to SCs and STs contend that vacancies in these categories are already underfilled, and hence, the issue of relatively better-off members monopolizing opportunities is less relevant.
- They also warn that applying such exclusion may aggravate the backlog of vacancies, which could eventually be converted into unreserved posts—undermining the representation guaranteed to SCs and STs
The right to equality of opportunity is a guaranteed fundamental right, and raising the reservation quota to as high as 85% could be seen as infringing upon this principle. At the same time, the pursuit of substantive equality through affirmative action remains essential for uplifting disadvantaged groups. After the 2027 Census, which is expected to include data on backward classes, there should be broad-based consultations with stakeholders to determine an appropriate level of reservation. Alongside this, the sub-categorisation of OBCs, as recommended by the Rohini Commission and informed by census findings, must be implemented. For SCs and STs, the idea of a ‘two-tier’ reservation model—where the most marginalised sections receive priority before benefits extend to relatively better-off groups—could be considered to ensure more equitable distribution across generations.
At the same time, policymakers must recognise that reservations alone cannot address the employment aspirations of India’s growing youth population, especially given the limited opportunities in the public sector. A strong emphasis on skill development and capacity building is vital so that young people can access meaningful and sustainable employment opportunities beyond the reservation framework
