“The measure of a just society is not whether it treats everyone equally, but whether it ensures equal opportunity for all.”
This principle underpins India’s reservation policy—a constitutional mechanism designed to rectify centuries of systemic discrimination against the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Historical Necessity: Why Reservation Exists
India’s caste system entrenched social hierarchies, denying education, economic rights, and political participation to vast sections of society. The framers of the Constitution, led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, recognized that formal equality was insufficient—affirmative action was necessary to level the playing field.
Reservation was thus introduced as a temporary corrective measure, not as a perpetual entitlement. Its objective was clear: to dismantle institutional barriers and foster inclusive growth.
Constitutional Framework: Legal Foundations of Reservation
The Constitution provides explicit provisions to enable affirmative action:
- Article 15(4) & 16(4): Empower the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes in education and public employment.
- Article 340: Authorizes the President to appoint commissions (like the Mandal Commission) to assess the conditions of backward classes.
These provisions ensure that the State can actively intervene to redress historical injustices.
Impact of Reservation: Progress and Challenges
Reservation has undeniably transformed lives:
✅ Increased Representation: More OBC, SC, and ST candidates in civil services, judiciary, and legislatures.
✅ Educational Access: Greater enrollment in premier institutions like IITs, IIMs, and central universities.
✅ Social Mobility: Breaking generational cycles of poverty and exclusion.
✅ Inclusive Governance: Diverse representation leads to more equitable policymaking.
However, challenges persist—creamy layer exclusion, politicization of caste identities, and debates over efficacy remain contentious.
Key Supreme Court Judgments Shaping Reservation Policy
The judiciary has played a pivotal role in balancing affirmative action with constitutional principles:
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Upheld 27% OBC reservation but imposed a 50% cap, emphasizing that equality cannot be compromised indefinitely.
- M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) – Held that reservation in promotions requires quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation.
- Jarnail Singh v. Lacchmi Narain Gupta (2018) – Relaxed the backwardness requirement for SC/ST promotions, focusing instead on representation.
- Maratha Quota Case (2021) – Struck down Maharashtra’s reservation exceeding 50%, reinforcing the ceiling unless under extraordinary circumstances.
- EWS Reservation (2022) – The Supreme Court upheld the 10% quota for economically weaker upper castes, treating economic deprivation as a valid criterion without breaching the 50% limit.
The Future of Reservation: Reforms and Road Ahead
Reservation must evolve to remain effective:
🔹 Data-Driven Policies: Caste-based quotas should be periodically reviewed using socio-economic data to prevent elite capture.
🔹 Economic + Caste Criteria: Combining financial status with social disadvantage could better target beneficiaries.
🔹 Skill Development & Education: Reservation alone cannot uplift—complementary policies in education and employment are crucial.
🔹 Judicial Scrutiny: Courts must ensure reservations do not become a political tool but remain a tool of empowerment.
Conclusion: Justice, Not Charity
Reservation was never meant to be permanent. Its success should be measured by how quickly it becomes irrelevant—when true equality of opportunity is achieved.
The path forward requires balancing social justice with meritocracy, ensuring that affirmative action remains a bridge to equality, not a perpetual crutch.
Authored by:
B S Makar, Advocate
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Founder – www.makarlaws.com
📞 9878131111
Specializing in Civil, Property, Cyber Fraud & NRI Disputes
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
