Introduction

Reservations have always stood at the crossroads of social justice and equality of opportunity in India. While Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India empower the state to address historical discrimination, the judicially imposed 50% cap has often clashed with demands for greater inclusivity. Recent developments, from Maharashtra’s acceptance of Maratha demands to calls for caste census and creamy layer reform, have amplified questions on whether the reservation system remains equitable, representative, and sustainable.

The Current Moment of Reckoning

The debate has reached a critical juncture because:

1. Political promises like Bihar opposition leader Tejashwi Yadav’s proposal for 85% reservations directly challenge the 50% ceiling.
2. Judicial scrutiny continues, with the Supreme Court questioning whether creamy layer exclusion should extend to SCs and STs.
3. Empirical concerns such as 40–50% of reserved seats remaining unfilled, and the Rohini Commission’s revelation that 97% of OBC benefits are cornered by 25% castes, highlight structural inequities.

This combination of political assertion, judicial intervention, and social critique makes the issue highly consequential.

Articles 15 and 16: The constitutional basis of equality and reservation

1. Equality mandate: Article 15 guarantees equality in state actions, including education; Article 16 guarantees equality in public employment.
2. Special provisions: Both allow the state to make reservations for OBCs, SCs, and STs.
3. Present levels: At the central level, reservations stand at 59.5% (OBC – 27%, SC – 15%, ST – 7.5%, EWS – 10%).

Judicial rulings on reservation and equality

1. Balaji vs State of Mysore (1962): Reservations must be “within reasonable limits” and capped at 50%; seen as upholding formal equality.
2. N.M. Thomas (1975): Saw reservations as a continuation of equality of opportunity (substantive equality), but gave no ruling on the cap.
3. Indra Sawhney (1992): Upheld 27% OBC quota, reaffirmed 50% ceiling, and introduced creamy layer exclusion for OBCs.
4. Janhit Abhiyan (2022): Validated 10% EWS quota; held that 50% limit applies only to backward classes.
5. Davinder Singh (2024): Suggested considering creamy layer exclusion for SCs and STs.

Challenges to the 50% ceiling on reservations

1. Population logic: Backward classes form a larger share than reflected in current quotas; caste census demanded to get exact numbers.
2. Unfilled vacancies: 40–50% of reserved seats for OBC/SC/ST remain unfilled at the central level.
3. Sub-caste concentration: Rohini Commission showed extreme skew in OBC benefits—about 1,000 communities have zero representation.

The problem of concentration of reservation benefits

1. OBCs: 97% benefits go to ~25% sub-castes.
2. SCs/STs: Similar skew; absence of creamy layer exclusion means relatively better-off sub-castes capture opportunities.
3. Policy vacuum: Despite judicial nudges, the Centre reaffirmed in August 2024 that creamy layer does not apply to SC/ST.

The way forward for India’s reservation system

1. Balancing equality: Increasing quota to 85% may violate equality of opportunity, but substantive equality demands better targeting.
2. Caste census 2027: Could offer empirical basis for restructured reservation.
3. Sub-categorisation: Rohini Commission’s recommendations need urgent implementation.
4. Two-tier system: Priority for the most marginalised within SC/STs could prevent elite capture.
5. Beyond reservation: Skill development and private sector opportunities are crucial, given shrinking public jobs.

Conclusion

India’s reservation policy is at an inflection point. Expanding quotas without reforming their structure risks perpetuating inequity within communities. A nuanced approach, backed by caste census data, sub-categorisation, and skill-building, can ensure that reservations remain a tool for empowerment rather than a political slogan. The challenge lies in balancing constitutional guarantees of equality with the imperative of social justice in a diverse democracy.

PYQ Relevance:

[UPSC 2019] Performance of welfare schemes that are implemented for vulnerable sections is not so effective due to absence of their awareness and active involvement at all stages of policy process, Discuss.

Linkage: The 2019 question highlights how welfare schemes for vulnerable sections often fail due to lack of awareness and skewed access. The same issue is reflected in India’s reservation policy: despite constitutional backing, 40–50% of reserved seats remain unfilled, and the Rohini Commission revealed that 97% of OBC benefits are cornered by just 25% sub-castes, leaving nearly 1,000 communities with no representation at all. This shows that affirmative action, much like welfare schemes, risks becoming ineffective unless equitable distribution, sub-categorisation, awareness generation, and active participation of the most marginalised are ensured.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now