The Great Indian Reservation System – Understanding its Past, Present and Solutions

Introduction: In recent times, India’s reservation policy has reignited debate amid new judicial and political developments. In 2024, the Supreme Court advocated excluding the “creamy layer” (affluent members) even among Scheduled Castes and Tribes, while in 2025 political leaders called to remove the 50% cap on quotas. These events underscore how the reservation system – an affirmative action program of unparalleled scope – remains a pivotal and evolving aspect of Indian society. The following sections detail the origin, evolution, and contemporary status of reservations in India, covering all major categories and key milestones up to 2025.

Historical Origins of Reservation (Pre-Independence)

• Early Demands (late 19th Century): Calls for affirmative action began under British rule. Educated Indians from oppressed communities sought fair representation in government jobs and councils as early as the 1880s, laying the groundwork for future quota systems.
• Princely State Reforms: Progressive Indian rulers introduced quotas for disadvantaged groups. In 1902, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj of Kolhapur reserved 50% of government posts for non-Brahmin and backward classes, pioneering formal reservation. Similarly, the Mysore Kingdom (1918) formed a committee to implement quotas for non-Brahmins in administration, despite opposition from elites.
• Communal Representation under the Raj: The British colonial government slowly incorporated communal representation:
  • Government of India Act 1909 (Morley-Minto Reforms): Introduced separate electorates for Muslims (not yet for lower castes), establishing a precedent for identity-based representation.
  • Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford): Expanded communal electorates; some provinces began nominating “Depressed Classes” (Dalits) to legislative councils.
  • Madras Presidency (1921 & 1927): The Justice Party government issued Communal Government Orders allocating fixed shares in state jobs and education (e.g. in 1927: 44% for backward caste Hindus, 16% for forward caste communities, 8% for Scheduled Castes). This was one of the earliest legislated quota schemes, later serving as a model for other regions.
• The Poona Pact (1932): A critical moment came when the British Prime Minister’s Communal Award (1932) proposed separate electorates for Depressed Classes. Mahatma Gandhi opposed segregated voting and fasted in protest. B. R. Ambedkar, representing Dalits, negotiated the Poona Pact with Gandhi: it abandoned separate electorates but reserved seats for Depressed Classes in provincial legislatures under a joint electorate. This compromise doubled the number of reserved legislative seats for Dalits compared to the original award, cementing the idea of political reservation.
• Government of India Act 1935: This Act created provincial assemblies with reserved seats for “Scheduled Castes” (a term arising from lists scheduled in the Act). Provincial elections in 1937 saw Dalits vote for their reserved representatives, implementing the Poona Pact. The 1935 Act thus institutionalized electoral reservations for marginalized castes, a practice independent India would inherit. It also provided communal representation for minorities like Muslims, Sikhs, and Anglo-Indians.
• Late Colonial Era Quotas: By the 1940s, limited employment reservations appeared. In 1942, the British Indian government reserved 8.5% of vacancies in central civil services for Scheduled Castes, marking the first concrete job quota at the all-India level. These colonial-era experiences set precedents and highlighted both the demand for equity and the tensions around communal preferences.

Reservation in the Indian Constitution (Post-1947 Foundations)

• Constituent Assembly Debates (1946–49): Post-independence, India’s leaders confronted the challenge of uplifting historically oppressed communities. B. R. Ambedkar, as chairman of the Drafting Committee (and a Dalit himself), championed provisions to safeguard Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The Assembly agreed on temporary political reservations and enabling clauses for social affirmative action, balancing equality with the need to remedy past injustice.
• Constitutional Provisions (1950): The Constitution of India (1950) formally launched the reservation policy:
  • Political Representation: Articles 330–334 provided for the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) and State Legislative Assemblies. Initially intended for 10 years (Article 334) as a special measure, these reservations have been regularly extended (recognizing that social inequalities persist). In the first Lok Sabha (1952), roughly 14% of seats were reserved for SCs and 6% for STs, mirroring their population share.
  • Social Empowerment: Article 15(4) (added by the 1st Amendment, 1951) empowered the State to make special provisions for the advancement of “socially and educationally backward classes” (a direct response to a Supreme Court case that disallowed communal quotas in education). Article 16(4), part of the original text, allowed reservation in public employment for any backward class under-represented in government services. These two clauses became the backbone for caste-based reservations in education and jobs.
  • Scheduled Areas and Tribes: The Constitution recognized the unique status of Scheduled Tribes by designating Scheduled Areas and providing for Tribal Advisory Councils. Article 46 (Directive Principles) enjoined the state to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, especially SCs and STs, laying a moral directive for affirmative action.
• Initial Implementation: From 1950, SC and ST reservations in government jobs and educational institutions became official policy. Quota percentages were set roughly in proportion to their population: often 15% for SCs and 5–7.5% for STs in central government services (these numbers were standardized later; by the 1980s, it was fixed at 15% SC and 7.5% ST). States adopted similar or higher quotas depending on local demographics (e.g., southern states with higher backward caste populations had broader schemes).
• First Backward Classes Commission (1953): Article 340 mandated identifying “socially and educationally backward classes”. The Kaka Kalelkar Commission (1953) was appointed for this task. In 1955, it submitted a report listing numerous castes as backward and recommending diverse measures (including caste-wise educational targets and welfare schemes). However, the government hesitated to implement broad caste-based quotas beyond SC/ST, partly due to criticism that the report relied heavily on caste and lacked clear criteria. This early attempt highlighted the complexity of defining “backwardness” in a newly independent India.
• Protection of Equality: While enabling reservations, the Constitution also upheld equality (Articles 14–16). The delicate balance was evident in early court cases. In State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court struck down a communal reservation in college admissions (for exceeding constitutional bounds), prompting the First Amendment that added Article 15(4). This episode reinforced that affirmative action needed a constitutional basis and proper tailoring to survive judicial scrutiny.

Caste-Based Reservation: Scheduled Castes (SCs)

• Background and Rationale: Scheduled Castes, formerly known as “Depressed Classes” or Dalits, have faced centuries of untouchability and social exclusion under the caste system. Reservation for SCs was conceived as a means to ensure representation and compensate for systemic oppression. SCs form roughly 16.6% of India’s population (2011 Census), and their inclusion in governance and services is a core goal of the policy.
• Quota Provisions: From the 1950s, SCs have a 15% quota in central government jobs and public higher education (mirroring their population share). This figure, standardized by 1982, ensures a portion of vacancies in every grade or course is set aside for SC candidates. Similarly, 15% of seats in central educational institutions (and many state institutions) are reserved for SC students. These quotas exist alongside political reservations – e.g., 84 Lok Sabha constituencies are reserved for SC candidates (out of 543, as of 2025).
• Implementation and Outcomes: Over the decades, SC reservations have led to the emergence of a growing Dalit middle class in government sectors. Thousands of SC candidates have accessed government jobs, universities, and legislatures through this facilitative entry. However, representation is still catching up, especially in higher-level positions. For instance, while lower bureaucracy and local governments see near full 15% SC representation, senior civil services and academia still have fewer SC officers and professors than the quota entitles, due to historical deficits and promotion bottlenecks.
• Special Measures: To enhance effectiveness, policies like post-based rosters (to fill backlog vacancies), relaxed qualifying marks in exams, and scholarships have been used. The Scheduled Castes Sub-Plan funnels plan funds for SC development. Also, laws like Protection of Civil Rights Act (1955) and SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act (1989) complement reservations by penalizing caste discrimination, creating an ecosystem for Dalit empowerment.
• Continued Challenges: Despite quotas, SC communities still face socio-economic gaps. There is an ongoing debate on whether the benefits are reaching the poorest Dalits or mainly a “creamy layer” of better-off SC families (who obtain jobs and then their children have improved access). Unlike OBCs, there is no income or class filter (creamy layer rule) for SC reservation – all Scheduled Castes, regardless of personal wealth, are eligible. This has led to demands for sub-categorization within SCs: some sub-castes that remain marginalized seek a proportion of the quota exclusive to them, to prevent more advanced Dalit sub-groups from cornering opportunities. The policy thus continues to evolve, trying to ensure inclusive growth within the SC category.

Caste-Based Reservation: Scheduled Tribes (STs)

• Background: Scheduled Tribes are indigenous tribal communities, constituting about 8.6% of the population. Historically isolated and often geographically remote, STs faced disadvantages in education and economic integration. The Constitution recognized STs as a distinct category needing protection and development assistance.
• Quota Provisions: STs receive a 7.5% quota in central government jobs and education (a figure aligned with their national population share). Like SCs, this percentage was gradually adopted across services and institutions by the early 1980s. Many states tailor the ST quota to their local tribal population; e.g., in several North-Eastern states (with tribal majorities), ST reservations in state employment and assemblies are much higher (even up to 80% in certain areas) to reflect demographics. Politically, 47 Lok Sabha seats are reserved for ST candidates nationwide.
• Autonomy and Administration: Beyond job and education quotas, STs benefit from provisions aimed at self-governance and preservation of tribal culture. Fifth Schedule areas (mainland India) and Sixth Schedule areas (certain North-East regions) allow tribal-majority districts a degree of autonomy. This includes reservations in local bodies and restrictions on land transfers to protect tribal land rights. These measures work in tandem with reservations to uplift ST communities.
• Utilization and Impact: Reservation has enabled ST representation in government staff and student bodies that was negligible before. Tribal youth from remote areas have entered civil services, academia, and professions via the quota gateway. However, like SCs, representation at higher echelons (top bureaucracy, judiciary, etc.) remains lower than the quota, due to educational disparities and fewer candidates at advanced levels. Efforts such as bridge courses, coaching schemes, and relaxed criteria aim to improve ST participation.
• Regional Variations: The effectiveness of ST reservations varies by region. In North-East India (e.g., Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya), STs form the majority and occupy most government positions naturally, making the formal quota less contentious (though these states still maintain high reservation percentages, often above the national norm). In other states, smaller tribes sometimes do not fully utilize the allotted seats due to educational gaps, leading to some unfilled ST quota in elite institutions. This has prompted programs to identify eligible candidates and build capacity among tribal communities.
• Ongoing Issues: Debates around “creamy layer” are less pronounced for STs, but the August 2024 Supreme Court ruling opened the door to applying the creamy layer principle to SC/ST as well (suggesting affluent individuals among STs might be ineligible in the future if legislated). Additionally, as some tribal groups advance, others remain deeply marginalized – fueling demands for internal sub-quotas among STs. Policy makers continue to balance these nuances to ensure that the most isolated and deprived tribes benefit from reservation.

Caste-Based Reservation: Other Backward Classes (OBCs)

• Definition and Scope: Other Backward Classes encompass a vast group of castes which are socially and educationally disadvantaged but not classified as SC or ST. OBCs are an extremely heterogeneous category, including peasant, artisan, and service castes that historically lacked upward mobility. Although the exact OBC population was long disputed (since post-1931 no caste census counted them), the Mandal Commission (1980) estimated OBCs to be roughly 52% of India’s population.
• The Mandal Commission (1979–80): Headed by B. P. Mandal, this commission was set up to determine criteria for identifying OBCs and to recommend measures for their advancement. It used 11 social, educational, and economic indicators to identify backward classes, ultimately listing 3,743 castes as OBC. Mandal famously recommended a 27% reservation in central government jobs for OBCs, in addition to the 22.5% for SC/ST, keeping total reservations at just under 50%. It also suggested similar reservations in universities and a possible 10% quota for economically weaker sections (EWS) of higher castes (an idea not implemented at the time).
• Implementation of OBC Quota (1990): After a decade of dormancy, the Mandal report was enacted by the V. P. Singh government in 1990, announcing 27% reservation for OBCs in central civil services. This sparked nationwide protests and intense debate over caste and merit. Nevertheless, the policy rolled out in 1992 after the Supreme Court upheld it (with conditions) in the landmark Indra Sawhney case. Since 1993, central government recruitment and many state services reserve 27% of vacancies for OBCs. (Some states had already been reserving jobs for backward classes – e.g., Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh – with varying percentages well before 1990.)
• OBC Reservation in Education (2006): A significant expansion occurred with the 93rd Constitutional Amendment (2005), which added Article 15(5). This enabled the government to reserve seats for OBC/SC/ST in all educational institutions, including private (unaided) institutions, except minority-run schools/colleges. Using this power, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 introduced 27% OBC reservations in central higher education institutions (like IITs, IIMs, central universities) from 2008 onward. To accommodate this, these institutions increased their total seats by roughly 54% so that general category seat numbers would not shrink – a policy design to maintain fairness.
• Current Coverage: As of 2025, OBCs benefit from 27% reservation in virtually all Union Government jobs and central educational admissions. Most states also have OBC quotas, ranging typically from 15% up to 40%, depending on regional backward class composition. (For example, Tamil Nadu clubbed backward and most-backward classes for a total of 50% state quota for decades; Maharashtra set 19% for OBC in state jobs, etc.) The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) maintains the central OBC list, now containing over 2500 communities eligible for these benefits.
• Creamy Layer Exclusion: A key feature distinguishing OBC reservations is the “creamy layer” concept. To ensure the truly needy benefit, OBC reservations exclude the socially advanced among them. Families above a certain income/wealth threshold (currently around ₹8 lakh annual income, with other criteria like parental rank in government) are designated “creamy layer” and not eligible for OBC quotas. This principle, laid down by the Supreme Court in 1992, aims to prevent the more affluent OBCs from monopolizing benefits and to foster intergenerational mobility across a broader base. The creamy layer criterion is periodically revised and remains subject to debate (some argue the income bar is low/high or that it should be applied to other categories as well).
• Impact and Representation: The inclusion of OBC reservations has reshaped public employment and education demography. In central government services, OBCs (including those from rural and lower-middle-class backgrounds) now occupy a substantial share of posts, though not yet fully 27% in higher cadres due to initial deficits and gradual uptake. In universities, thousands of OBC students, who might have missed out under purely merit-based admissions, have accessed elite institutions. This has incrementally reduced educational inequities. However, like SC/ST, representation diminishes at postgraduate and doctoral levels, indicating continuing challenges in preparatory schooling and economic capacity.
• Sub-Categorization Debate: Because OBCs encompass disparate communities, there are internal inequities – some populous or politically influential OBC groups secure a larger portion of jobs/college seats, while smaller or more marginalized OBC communities get less share. To remedy this, several states (like Bihar, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu) created sub-quotas for Extremely Backward Classes or Most Backward Classes within the OBC quota. In 2017, the central government appointed the Rohini Commission to explore sub-categorizing the central OBC list for more equitable distribution. By 2025, this commission’s recommendations were under consideration, reflecting a push to ensure fair sharing of the 27% pie among all OBC communities.
• Political Significance: OBC reservation, more than any other category, has had a profound political impact. It led to the rise of strong OBC leadership and parties in the 1990s (the Mandal era), reconfigured electoral politics around caste coalitions, and remains a vote-bank issue. Governments have at times expanded OBC lists to include influential communities (e.g., Jats, Marathas, Patels sought OBC status in recent years). Courts have generally checked unwarranted additions that lack genuine social backwardness, but the pressures are ongoing. Thus, OBC quotas are not just a social justice mechanism but a central theme in India’s power dynamics.

Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) Quota

• Genesis of EWS Reservation: Historically, India’s reservation policy was rooted in social and educational backwardness (mainly caste-based). However, there was long-standing discussion about economically poor citizens from “forward” communities who were ineligible for caste quotas. In 2019, the government introduced a new 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in the general category (those not covered under any existing SC/ST/OBC reservation). This was enabled by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6), creating a quota based on economic criteria.
• Eligibility and Criteria: EWS beneficiaries are defined by income and asset thresholds. As of 2019, families with annual income below ₹8 lakh, owning limited farmland (under 5 acres) or modest residential property, and not falling under SC/ST/OBC, qualify as EWS. This effectively targets the poorer segments among communities traditionally deemed “upper” caste or otherwise not backward enough to be OBC. The 10% EWS quota applies to government jobs and public educational institutions (including central universities, IITs, etc.), on top of the existing 49.5% caste-based reservations.
• Controversy and Legal Validation: The EWS quota stirred intense debate on whether economic hardship alone should be a basis for reservation. Proponents argued it addressed poverty across communities and corrected an exclusion, while opponents claimed it deviated from the historic logic of remedying social discrimination and could breach the 50% cap. Several petitions reached the Supreme Court. In a notable judgment (Janhit Abhiyan vs UOI, November 2022), a 5-judge bench upheld the EWS quota (3:2 majority). The Court ruled that the 10% economic quota did not violate the basic structure, even though it pushed total reservations to 59.5%. It also held that excluding SC/ST/OBC from EWS (reserving it only for “unreserved” poor) was permissible to promote equality for the truly economically deprived among forward classes. The majority observed that the 50% cap is a rule of thumb (not an absolute constitutional limit) and can be exceeded in special circumstances – EWS being one such instance.
• Implementation: Post-2019, union and state governments have been allocating 10% of open jobs and college seats to EWS. This required infrastructure expansion in education (to avoid shrinking general seats). In recruitment exams, separate cut-offs for EWS are now a norm, though initial years saw many unfilled EWS positions (due to lack of awareness and overlapping eligibility with general candidates). Over time, uptake has increased as more eligible candidates avail this benefit.
• Significance: The introduction of EWS reservation is a paradigm shift, marking the first major reservation that is non-caste-based. It acknowledges economic disadvantage as a standalone criterion in India’s affirmative action landscape. Politically, it was widely supported by parties, and socially it has somewhat blunted demands from economically poor among forward communities who felt left out. Critics note, however, that EWS quotas benefit a segment that is not necessarily the most deprived (given the relatively high income ceiling) and caution that it should not distract from the core issue of caste-based inequalities. The coming years will test how EWS reservation coexists with traditional quotas and whether it indeed uplifts the intended beneficiaries.

Gender-Based Reservation (Women)

• Women in Education and Employment: Unlike caste or tribe, gender-based reservation in general education or jobs is not mandated at the national level, but there are notable initiatives. Several states implement horizontal reservations for women within existing quotas. For example, many state government jobs set aside 30–35% of positions for women (across all categories), ensuring women have representation in civil services, police, etc. In some engineering and medical colleges, female candidates have supernumerary seats or quota to encourage their participation. While not uniform nationwide, these measures improve gender balance in traditionally male-dominated fields.
• Political Representation for Women: The most significant gender-based reservation has been in local governance. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992–93) mandated that one-third (33.3%) of seats in all Panchayati Raj Institutions (rural local bodies) and Municipalities be reserved for women, including rotation of these reserved seats among different constituencies. This also applies to one-third of the chairperson (Pradhan/Mayor) positions. Many states later voluntarily increased this quota to 50%. As a result, women’s participation in grassroots politics has surged – there are over 1.4 million elected women representatives in panchayats (around 44% of total members), making India a leader in women’s local governance. This empowerment at the village and town level has had ripple effects on social attitudes and women’s leadership.
• ​The Women’s Reservation Act, 2023, officially known as the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, marks a historic step in India’s journey towards gender equality. Passed by Parliament in September 2023, the Act reserves one-third of seats in the Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and the Delhi assembly for women, including within the quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This landmark legislation, passed after decades of debate, aims to enhance women’s representation in legislative bodies. The reservation will be implemented after the next delimitation exercise, expected post-2026, and will remain in effect for 15 years from its commencement. ​
• Other Gender Initiatives: Some professional colleges have introduced reservations or relaxed criteria for female students in fields like engineering and military academies to correct gender imbalance. Additionally, judiciary and corporate sectors have seen calls (though not legal mandates) for quotas for women (e.g., some states aim for a percentage of women judges or impose quotas for women on company boards as per SEBI guidelines). These efforts, while outside formal reservation law, echo the spirit of affirmative action for gender equity.
• Transgender Persons: In 2014, the Supreme Court in the NALSA judgment recognized transgender people as a third gender and directed that they be treated as “socially and educationally backward” – effectively eligible for OBC-type reservation. Following this, some states (like Tamil Nadu) have designated transgender persons under Most Backward Classes for quotas. The central government too allows transgender applicants to avail reservation under OBC category if they meet the criteria. This inclusion is an evolving aspect of gender-based affirmative action, addressing those who have faced bias due to gender identity.

Reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD)

• Evolution of PwD Quota: Reservations for persons with disabilities were introduced to improve representation of differently-abled individuals in education and employment. The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 initially provided 3% reservation in government jobs (1% each for visual, hearing, and locomotor disabilities). This concept was expanded significantly by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
• Current Provisions: Under the RPwD Act 2016, 4% of all government jobs are reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities (disability >=40%). These are divided among various disability categories (e.g., locomotor, visual, hearing, intellectual, and others each get specific sub-quotas). In addition, 5% of seats in government aided higher education institutions are reserved for disabled students. This applies across all categories, effectively functioning as a horizontal reservation (i.e., a disabled candidate can claim a seat under SC, ST, OBC, or general category as well, but counting towards the disability quota).
• Coverage: Disabilities recognized include not just physical but also developmental and mental conditions (expanded to 21 categories in 2016, such as autism, cerebral palsy, acid attack victims, etc.). This ensures a broad set of individuals can benefit. For example, a blind candidate from an OBC background can claim the seat reserved for the disabled in the OBC quota of a job or college.
• Impact and Challenges: The reservation has increased visibility of PwD in public employment – offices are now more likely to have employees with disabilities, and universities have more differently-abled students. However, implementation faces hurdles: accessibility remains an issue (physical infrastructure and assistive technology in workplaces and campuses need improvement), and many positions for the disabled go vacant if qualified candidates are not available or if hiring departments are unaware. To address this, governments conduct special recruitment drives to fill backlog vacancies for PwDs and offer training programs to enhance their employability.
• Inclusivity Measures: Beyond quotas, the law mandates reasonable accommodation – like accessible exam formats, extra time for tests, assistive devices – to enable disabled candidates to compete. Enforcement of the 4% reservation is monitored by the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. Private sector job reservation for PwDs is not legally required, but companies are given incentives to hire disabled persons (e.g., subsidies for modifying workplaces), complementing the public sector mandate.
• Significance: The disability reservation is an example of affirmative action beyond caste/gender lines, focusing on a segment traditionally excluded due to physical and social barriers. About 2.2% of India’s population lives with disabilities (2011 Census). The quota and related provisions strive to ensure this vulnerable group finds representation and support in the workforce and classrooms, aligning with the broader objective of an inclusive society.

Regional and Domicile-Based Reservations

• State Domicile Quotas in Education: Regional reservations refer to preferences for locals of a particular state or region. In state-funded educational institutions (especially medical and engineering colleges), it is common to reserve a majority of seats for domicile candidates. For instance, many states allocate 70–85% of seats in state universities to residents of that state, ensuring local students have better access to higher education. Central institutions like NITs (National Institutes of Technology) follow a model where about 50% of seats are reserved for students of the home state. These domicile quotas recognize the principle of local entitlement, given education is primarily a state subject.
• Reservations for Specific Regions/Groups: Some schemes target particular regions or sub-populations to address imbalances:
  • Hill/Border Areas: Certain states (e.g., Jammu & Kashmir before reorganization, Himachal Pradesh, etc.) reserve educational seats or jobs for people from remote hill areas, border districts, or backward regions within the state, to ensure representation from those underdeveloped localities.
  • Migrants and Minorities: A few states have quotas for groups like Kashmiri migrants (children of Kashmiri Pandits displaced from the Valley) or for minorities in educational institutions (for example, some colleges in southern states reserve a small percent for Tamil or North-East origin students to encourage diversity).
• Local Reservation in Employment: Jobs under state government or local authorities at times favor residents:
  • Public Employment: Article 16(3) of the Constitution permits Parliament to legislate residence requirements for certain jobs. Using this, states often require that candidates for Class III and IV jobs (clerical and manual posts) be domiciles of that state. This is legally accepted and ensures local youth get preference in subordinate services.
  • Private Sector Initiatives: In recent years, political pressure has led some states to attempt reserving jobs in the private sector for locals. For example, Haryana (2020) passed a law reserving 75% of private sector jobs (up to a certain salary level) for state residents; Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand proposed similar measures. These laws have met with legal challenges and practical pushback from industries. Courts have signaled that excessive reservation in private jobs may violate constitutional freedom of trade and equality – as of 2025, such policies are in nascent stages or stayed by courts.
• Autonomous Region Protections: Constitutional provisions (like Article 371 and related clauses) grant special protections to certain states, allowing local preference. For instance, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh (via Article 371A, G, H etc.) effectively can prioritize local tribes in jobs/land/education due to their autonomous status. Jammu & Kashmir, prior to the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, had reserved all government jobs for state subjects. After 2019, J&K (now a Union Territory) still implemented domicile rules for jobs through subordinate legislation.
• Judicial Limits: The Supreme Court has maintained that while local reservations in education and junior jobs are permissible within reason, they should not be excessive to the point of excluding all outside talent. In 2021–22, the Court struck down a 85% domicile quota in a Chandigarh medical college for post-graduate seats, calling it unconstitutionally high. Similarly, courts keep the total reservation (including any regional quota combined with caste quota) within the bounds of fairness (often referencing the 50% rule for total reservations, though that primarily applies to caste-based vertical quotas).
• Purpose and Critique: Regional reservations aim to prevent regional imbalances where certain areas might be under-represented in services or educational intake. However, critics argue they can undermine national integration and meritocracy if overused. States continue to walk a fine line – implementing moderate domicile preferences that pass constitutional muster and shelving extreme measures that do not. Overall, regional reservations reflect the federal reality of India: states feel the need to protect opportunities for their residents, especially when migration and inter-state competition for jobs/college seats are intense.

Political Reservation in Legislatures and Local Bodies

• Parliament and State Assemblies (SC/ST Reserved Seats):
  • Parliamentary Representation: Since the first general election in 1952, certain constituencies for the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) have been reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates. Only members of the designated community may contest from these seats, although all voters in the constituency vote as usual. As of the 17th Lok Sabha (2019–2024), 84 seats are reserved for SCs and 47 seats for STs, totaling 131 reserved constituencies (about 24% of the 543 elected seats, matching the roughly 24% SC/ST population nationally). This arrangement ensures Dalit and Adivasi voices in the highest law-making body.
  • State Legislatures: Similarly, in State Legislative Assemblies, seats are reserved for SCs and STs in proportion to their share of the state’s population. For example, Uttar Pradesh reserves 21% of assembly constituencies for SCs, reflecting its Dalit population share, whereas a tribal-populated state like Odisha reserves both SC and ST seats accordingly. These reserved MLAs have the same roles and voting rights as others, but their presence guarantees minority representation at the state level.
  • Periodic Delimitation: The specific constituencies reserved are decided by a Delimitation Commission, which after each census (or when Parliament allows delimitation) rotates or redefines which areas are reserved, based on changes in SC/ST population distribution. The idea is not to permanently lock a seat for reservation but to rotate it so that reserved constituencies are broadly fair and representative. However, rotation is infrequent (last major delimitation was based on the 2001 census, implemented in 2008; the next is expected after 2026).
  • Temporary but Extended: Political reservations for SC/ST were originally intended to expire after 10 years (in 1960). However, recognizing the continued need for representation, Parliament has repeatedly extended this period by constitutional amendments (most recently extended till 2030). Over 70+ years, SC/ST reserved seats have been credited with creating a class of Dalit and tribal political leaders and giving those communities a voice in law-making. The consensus across parties has been to continue this mechanism as long as social disparities exist.
• Panchayati Raj and Urban Local Bodies (Women, SC/ST, OBC Reservations):
  • Rural Local Bodies: The 73rd Amendment (1992) not only mandated women’s reservation in Panchayats but also ensured SC and ST representation at the grassroots. In every village panchayat and district council, seats are reserved for SCs and STs in proportion to their population in that area. Furthermore, among those reserved seats, at least one-third are reserved for women of those categories. Many states also reserve some panchayat seats for OBCs (this was left to state legislation; e.g., Maharashtra, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, etc., have ~27% seats for OBCs in local bodies). To implement this, a “triple rotation” system is often used: one set of seats reserved for SC, ST, OBC respectively, and within each, one-third for women, with rotation in each election to different wards.
  • Urban Local Bodies: The 74th Amendment similarly provided for reservations in Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, and Nagar Panchayats. SC/ST communities get reserved representation as per local population, and one-third of all seats for women (across general and reserved categories). Some states have extended OBC reservation to urban bodies as well.
  • Women as Leaders: Notably, the reservation for women in panchayats extends to leadership positions – i.e., one-third (or 50% in many states) of village heads (Sarpanch) and district presidents must be women, often including SC/ST women for those reserved constituencies. This has led to hundreds of thousands of women heading local governments, a revolutionary change in rural power structures.
  • OBC Reservation in Local Bodies – Judicial Tests: Reservation for Other Backward Classes in local elected bodies has faced judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court mandated that combined SC, ST and OBC reservation in any local body cannot exceed 50% of total seats (to preserve balance) and laid down a requirement for an empirical “triple test”: (1) establish need with a commission’s study, (2) specify proportion of OBCs in that area, and (3) ensure total does not cross 50%. In 2021, local elections in states like Maharashtra were briefly halted until OBC share was justified with fresh data. By 2022, states started conducting surveys to reinstate OBC quotas in panchayats in compliance with court guidelines.
  • Political Empowerment Outcomes: The quota system in local governance has drastically changed the face of Indian democracy at the base level. Traditionally under-represented groups now routinely participate in councils, influencing decisions on local development. While challenges like proxy candidates (e.g., a male relative wielding power for a female nominee) exist, studies show growing assertion and capacity among reserved representatives. The inclusion of OBCs in local power (where present) also allows backward communities a say in governance beyond the state legislature and Parliament where they might not have proportional representation due to no OBC-specific reservation in those higher bodies.

Key Judicial Interventions Shaping Reservation Policy

• Early Judicial Landmarks:
  • State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): The first major case, it struck down caste-based communal quotas in a Tamil Nadu medical college as violating the right to equality. This decision directly led to the First Constitutional Amendment (Article 15(4)) to validate special provisions for backward classes, thus asserting that the Constitution could be amended to protect affirmative action.
  • M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that caste, while a dominant factor, could not be the sole criterion for backwardness; economic and educational factors must also count. Importantly, it introduced the idea that total reservations should generally not exceed 50% (to maintain balance with merit seats). This 50% figure was later treated as a guideline.
  • T. Devadasan v. Union of India (1964): Known as the “carry-forward case,” the Court struck down a government order that carried forward unfilled reserved vacancies to next year, which had led to >50% reserved seats in a particular year. This reaffirmed the emerging 50% cap principle in a given recruitment and emphasized equality of opportunity.
• The Mandal Case – Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): A nine-judge constitutional bench delivered a seminal judgment in the wake of OBC reservations:
  • Upheld the Mandal Commission’s 27% OBC reservation, firmly establishing the legitimacy of job quotas for OBCs under Article 16(4).
  • Enforced the creamy layer exclusion for OBCs: directing that advanced sections among backward classes be excluded to prevent inequity (this principle, however, was not extended to SCs/STs in this judgment).
  • Firmly maintained the 50% ceiling on total reservations in normal circumstances. Reservations above 50% would be permissible only in truly extraordinary situations (e.g., far-flung tribal areas), thus making 50% an effective cap across India (some existing exceptions like Tamil Nadu’s 69% were noted but left for future consideration).
  • Held that reservation in promotions was not constitutionally allowed for OBCs or other groups under Article 16(4) (since that covers initial recruitment only). This invalidated routine promotional quotas, with the Court saying Article 16(4) doesn’t extend to promotions.
  • Endorsed the idea that reservations should be reviewed periodically (every 10 years) but did not impose a sunset, leaving it to the discretion of policy.
  • As a result of Indra Sawhney, the government created the NCBC to refine the OBC list and implemented the ruling’s criteria. This case remains the cornerstone, often cited for the 50% rule and creamy layer concept.
• Reservation in Promotions and its Aftermath:
  • Article 16(4A) and 16(4B): In response to Indra Sawhney disallowing promotions, the Constitution was amended multiple times. The 77th Amendment (1995) added Article 16(4A), explicitly permitting reservation in promotions for SCs and STs in government jobs. Subsequent amendments – 81st (2000), 82nd (2000), 85th (2001) – further adjusted this framework (allowing carry-forward vacancies for SC/ST beyond 50% in a year, relaxing promotion criteria by modifying Article 335, and giving promoted SC/ST candidates consequential seniority).
  • M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): A five-judge bench reviewed the above amendments. It upheld the constitutional validity of promotions for SC/ST but laid down strict conditions (“compelling reasons” test) for governments to implement such reservation in promotions: they must demonstrate backwardness of the group (which put an odd requirement because SC/ST backwardness is presumed), inadequate representation in the service, and that overall administrative efficiency is maintained (Article 335). Essentially, Nagaraj did not strike down the amendments but made the provisions enabling, not automatic – each state had to gather quantifiable data to show need for promotions.
  • Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018): This judgment revisited Nagaraj. The Court removed the requirement to show backwardness for SC/ST (noting that SC/ST by default are backward in context of promotions, as they are specified groups), but it upheld the need for data on inadequate representation and impact on efficiency. It also affirmed that the creamy layer can be applied to SC/ST in promotions if the state chooses (though not mandated). This indicated a softening towards applying creamy layer across the board in the interest of equality.
• Educational Institutions and Other Cases:
  • T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002) & P.A. Inamdar (2005): These cases dealt with reservation in private educational institutions. The Supreme Court initially held that the state could not impose quotas on private unaided colleges (especially run by minorities, citing Article 30). This led to the 93rd Amendment (2005) which allowed such reservation (except in minority institutions), later upheld in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) where the Court validated OBC reservations in central universities (post-2006) but with the creamy layer exclusion and without breaching 50% in those institutions.
  • Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008): This was the challenge to OBC quotas in IITs/IIMs/etc. The Court upheld the 27% reservation in higher education as constitutionally valid. It reiterated exclusion of creamy layer in education and rejected the need for a creamy layer concept for SC/ST in education at that time. The judgment also advised the government to refine criteria and keep reviewing the policy.
  • Maratha Reservation Case – Dr. J. Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra (2021): Maharashtra’s law granting an additional 12-16% quota for Marathas (a dominant community) under a new SEBC category was struck down. A five-judge bench declared that exceeding the 50% limit without exceptional circumstances violates equality (no extraordinary situation in Maharashtra to justify 64% total reservation). The Court also ruled that after the 102nd Amendment (which gave constitutional status to NCBC), states no longer have the unfettered power to identify OBCs – this part of the ruling was later countered by the 105th Amendment (2021) clarifying that states can maintain their OBC lists. The Maratha case reaffirmed the sanctity of the 50% rule in the absence of clear constitutional authorization to exceed it.
  • Economic Reservation – Janhit Abhiyan v. UOI (2022): This upheld the EWS 10% quota as discussed earlier, signaling that the 50% cap, while a hallmark of Indra Sawhney, is not an absolute inviolable principle if Parliament lawfully amends the Constitution to create a new category of affirmative action.
  • Sub-Classification of SC/ST – State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) & Govt of India v. Parmar (2022): The issue of whether sub-groups within SC/ST can get separate quota (to benefit the most backward among them) reached the Court. Earlier judgments disallowed any division of SC/ST lists (e.g., E.V. Chinnaiah 2005). But in 2020, a larger bench indicated sub-classification is permissible to ensure equitable distribution of benefits. Finally, in August 2024, the Supreme Court by majority allowed states to make sub-quotas for SCs/STs internally. This came with a notable concurring view that the creamy layer principle should apply to SC/ST as well – a significant development signaling a future direction of policy (though implementation is pending legislative action).
• Guiding Principles Established: Through these cases, the judiciary has:
  • Maintained equality as a balance to affirmative action (preventing quotas from making merit and open access obsolete).
  • Introduced the concept of “protective discrimination” with limits (like the 50% cap, creamy layer, and data-backed justifications).
  • Recognized flexibility in special cases (e.g., upholding EWS, allowing promotions for SC/ST via constitutional amendments).
  • Emphasized that reservations are an enabling provision, not a fundamental right – i.e., state discretion is key, though if provided, it must meet constitutional norms.
  • Continually interpreted what “backwardness” means in a changing society, thereby influencing which groups get recognized. Each verdict has thus incrementally shaped the contours of India’s reservation system as it stands in 2025.

Role of Caste Census and Data in Policy Making

• Caste Data in Pre-Independence and Early India: The last comprehensive caste census in India was conducted in 1931 by the British. This data became a baseline for post-independence policies (e.g., Mandal Commission relying on 1931 figures to estimate OBC population). After Independence, due to concerns of entrenching caste identities, the decennial censuses (1951 onwards) collected data only on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, not on other castes. This created a significant information gap regarding Other Backward Classes and other caste groups in free India.
• Importance of Data for Reservations: Reservation policies hinge on identifying backward groups and gauging their under-representation. Accurate demographic and socio-economic data by caste is crucial to:
  • Determine the proportion of population eligible for quotas (e.g., justification of 27% OBC quota assumed OBCs ~52% of population).
  • Assess representation in jobs/education (to measure “inadequacy of representation” for enabling or continuing quotas).
  • Implement court mandates (such as the requirement for empirical data for OBC reservation in local bodies, or the quantifiable data needed per Nagaraj judgment for promotions).
• Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011: To address the void, the government undertook a massive SECC in 2011, parallel to the population census. It aimed to profile households by socio-economic status and collect caste information. While the socioeconomic data was used for welfare scheme targeting, the caste data from SECC 2011 was never officially released due to concerns over accuracy and sensitivities. This opaque outcome kept the debate alive on obtaining reliable caste statistics.
• Recent Push for Caste Count: In the 2020s, there has been a growing demand for a fresh caste census:
  • Political Resolutions: Several state legislative assemblies (Bihar, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, etc.) and parliamentarians urged the Union to include caste (beyond SC/ST) in the 2021 Census. The central government, however, decided against it, citing administrative and technical complexities.
  • State-Level Surveys: In the absence of a national exercise, some states launched their own caste surveys. Bihar (2023) conducted a statewide caste-based survey to enumerate population of each caste and their socio-economic conditions. Karnataka earlier attempted a similar survey in 2015 (though results were not officially published). These efforts indicate regional initiatives to update data for local policy (e.g., Bihar’s survey results could influence state OBC sub-quotas or welfare targeting).
• Role in Shaping Policy: Up-to-date caste data could significantly impact reservation policy:
  • If OBCs are shown to be, say, 60% of a state’s population but have only 27% reservation, it could fuel demands to increase quotas or at least ensure full utilization.
  • Data might highlight intra-caste disparities (justifying sub-categories or special focus on extremely backward subsets).
  • It would inform the debate on the 50% limit – some argue that if backward classes comprise a majority of population, capping reservations at 50% is unfair; concrete numbers would strengthen their case.
  • Accurate figures on representation (e.g., percentage of IAS officers who are OBC vs their population share) help evaluate the effectiveness of reservations and where the gaps remain.
• Judicial Emphasis on Data: Courts have increasingly asked governments to produce empirical evidence for continuing or extending quotas. For instance, to sustain OBC reservation in local elections, states had to appoint commissions to collect community-wise data. In promotions, “quantifiable data” on lack of representation is needed. Thus, data collection is not just academic; it’s often mandated for policy defense in courts.
• Challenges: Conducting a caste census is fraught with logistical challenges (classification of thousands of castes, accuracy of self-declaration) and political sensitivities (possibility of inflaming caste tensions or demands from newly quantified groups). There’s also fear of regional political upheavals if certain groups’ numbers are higher or lower than assumed. Despite these concerns, by 2025, the consensus is building that updated caste data is necessary for rational and fair policymaking. It underpins the principle that policy should be evidence-based: to calibrate reservation policies to the ground reality of disadvantage, India needs to know where its social groups stand in terms of population and progress.

Trends in Educational and Employment Reservation

• Expansion Over Time: The sphere of reservations has progressively widened since 1950:
  • In the 1950s–70s, reservations were implemented mostly in government jobs and state-run educational institutions, focusing on SC and ST candidates. Many elite institutions had no reservation initially (or only SC/ST), and the private sector and central higher education were untouched.
  • By the 1990s, with OBC inclusion, the reservation net expanded to a larger section of society in government employment.
  • The 2000s saw reservations penetrate central higher education (e.g., central universities, IITs, IIMs introduced OBC quotas post-2006) and even private institutes (post-93rd Amendment for SC/ST/OBC in aided or unaided colleges, although implementation in private unaided colleges remains partial, as many states haven’t notified quotas in all private colleges).
  • 2010s–2020s: New categories like EWS emerged, and discussions began on quotas in new domains (private sector jobs, promotions, etc.). By 2025, almost all public-funded avenues—school admissions, college admissions, government hiring, legislative bodies—have some reservation component.
• Participation and Outcomes in Education: Thanks to reservations, enrollment of SC/ST/OBC students in higher education has risen significantly:
  • Universities and Colleges: SC/ST students, once rare in elite colleges, now routinely comprise 15% and 7.5% of intakes respectively, and OBCs up to 27%, in central institutions. This has had a cascading effect: more graduates from these communities mean more candidates eligible for various professions and competitive exams.
  • Professional Courses: Fields like engineering, medicine, and management saw increased diversity post-reservation. For instance, AIIMS (premier medical institute) and the IITs had to admit their first large batches of OBC students after 2008, altering campus demographics. While initial performance gaps (due to disparities in prior schooling) were noted, supplemental coaching and campus support programs have helped bridge them.
  • Scholarships and Afirmative support: To complement quotas, governments provide scholarships (e.g., Post-Matric Scholarship for SC/ST/OBC), hostel facilities, and remedial coaching to reserved category students. This has improved retention and success rates. Still, representation in research and faculty positions remains low, prompting schemes to encourage PhD fellowships for reserved categories.

• Representation in Government Employment: Reservation has made bureaucracy and public offices more inclusive, but with varying degrees of success across levels:
  • Central Services: In Group A (elite services) like IAS, IPS, the intake through UPSC follows 15% SC, 7.5% ST, 27% OBC (since 1990s). Over time, the proportion of civil servants from these groups has grown. SC/ST officers have even reached top positions (e.g., Secretaries to Government, State Chief Secretaries) albeit not proportionate to their population yet. The OBC presence in higher bureaucracy started in the mid-90s and by 2025, OBC officers are an integral part of the civil services leadership, though still catching up to the 27% mark in senior roles.
  • State Services: States with higher overall reservation (like Tamil Nadu with 69%, Karnataka ~50%) have a majority of bureaucratic recruits from reserved categories. In others, it’s around half. The deficit of qualified candidates in some technical posts sometimes leads to unfilled reserved vacancies, which are then carried forward or filled by substitutions after attempts.
  • Public Sector Units and Others: PSU hiring, public banks, etc., also enforce reservations, contributing to the development of a sizable middle class of SC/ST/OBC employees in the economy.
  • Promotions and Higher Posts: While entry-level representation improved, promotions for SC/ST have been subject to policy swings. In some departments, promotion quotas (when in force) helped a number of SC/ST officers rise in rank. When promotion quotas were struck down or limited by court conditions, career progression slowed. Thus, in top echelons (Generals in Army, Directors in bureaucracy), SC/ST are still underrepresented relative to intake levels decades ago. The policy debate continues on how to balance merit and affirmative action in promotions.

• Horizontal Reservations (Intersectional): A notable trend is the use of horizontal reservations that cut across vertical categories. For example:
  • Women: Many states reserve a percentage of all jobs for women (general and within each category). So a job roster might stipulate that 33% of SC positions are for SC women, and similarly for ST, OBC, General. This has ensured women from backward groups benefit doubly (from caste quota and women’s quota).
  • Persons with Disabilities, Ex-Servicemen, Sports Quota: These are also horizontal reservations. Typically, 3-5% for PwD, a small % for ex-servicemen, and some for meritorious sportspersons are carved out within each category. This layering has added complexity but increased the inclusiveness of government employment, acknowledging multiple identities and disadvantages.
• Monitoring and Outcomes: The government monitors representation via annual reports of commissions (like NCSC, NCST, NCBC) and department data. There have been improvements: for example, SC employees in central government roughly match their 15% quota in lower grade jobs and are gradually increasing in Class I jobs (though still around 12% in highest grades by some estimates). ST employees are fewer (perhaps 6% in highest grades vs 7.5% target). OBC representation in central government jobs rose quickly after 1993 in lower tiers, but in Class A services it lagged (by mid-2010s, ~13% of Group A were OBC, now climbing towards 27% as newer batches get promoted). These trends show progress, but also that achieving proportional representation at all levels is a long-term process.
• Public Perception: Initially contentious, reservations in education/jobs have become an accepted norm, though debates on “merit” vs “social justice” persist. A positive trend is that more families from reserved groups have broken cycles of poverty thanks to stable government jobs or quality higher education – a tangible outcome of the policy. At the same time, concerns about over-reliance on quotas and the need to improve primary education and reduce the need for reservation in the long run are frequently voiced by experts.

Role of Institutions: Commissions and Authorities

• National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC): Established under Article 338, NCSC is a constitutional body mandated to safeguard SC interests. It investigates complaints of denial of rights/benefits (like non-implementation of quotas or atrocities), monitors programs intended for SC upliftment, and reports annually to Parliament. It has the power to summon officials and make recommendations. For example, if a government department hasn’t filled SC vacancies or an SC student quota is misapplied, NCSC can intervene. Over the years, NCSC (and originally its predecessor, the Special Officer for SC/ST until 1978) has played an ombudsman role, highlighting shortfalls in reservation implementation and influencing policy tweaks (like urging expansion of scholarships or strict action on fake caste certificates). A similar body existed combined for SC and ST until 2003, when it was bifurcated.
• National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST): Carved out by the 89th Amendment (2003) as a separate Article 338A, NCST focuses on ST issues. It performs analogous functions for Scheduled Tribes – ensuring reservation in jobs and education is delivered, protection of tribal autonomy and land rights, and assessment of development schemes in tribal areas. NCST has investigated cases where ST reservation seats remained vacant or instances where tribal candidates faced hurdles. The Commission’s insights help shape tribal sub-plan allocations and identify new communities for ST status. Both NCSC and NCST have a advisory role in inclusion/exclusion of castes or tribes from the official SC/ST lists (though the final decision rests with Parliament through legislation).
• National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC): Initially a statutory body (formed in 1993 after Indra Sawhney), NCBC was granted constitutional status by the 102nd Amendment (2018), under Article 338B. NCBC’s primary task is to advise on the inclusion of communities in the Central OBC list and address grievances of OBCs. With constitutional status, NCBC’s role and clout increased – now, like NCSC, it presents annual reports and its recommendations (for example, adding a community to the OBC list or applying creamy layer revisions) carry significant weight. The 102nd Amendment also vested the President (centrally, NCBC’s advice) with the power to identify OBCs, which briefly created a tussle with states until the 105th Amendment (2021) clarified that states can identify OBCs for their own lists too. NCBC also has conducted studies on sub-categorization and measures needed for backward classes’ welfare beyond reservation alone.
• Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Ministry of Social Justice: Within the government, DoPT issues guidelines on reservation in services – maintaining rosters, defining creamy layer criteria, etc. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment oversees policies for OBC, SC, and general economic weaker sections, while the Ministry of Tribal Affairs oversees ST policies. They coordinate with commissions and ensure implementation across ministries. They also pilot legislation for quota-related amendments when needed.
• Law Commission of India: Though not directly administering reservations, the Law Commission (an advisory body for legal reforms) has analyzed aspects of reservation in various reports. For example, past Law Commission reports have touched on:
  • Sub-categorization of SCs/STs: debating if a judicial clarification or amendment is needed to allow splitting lists (an issue later resolved by the Supreme Court).
  • Review of the Anti-atrocities law: ensuring legal frameworks support the spirit of reservation by protecting reserved communities from social aggression.
  • Efficiency and Reservation: Some Law Commission discussions examined whether excessive quotas could impact administrative efficiency or how to balance Article 335 (which speaks to considering maintenance of efficiency in administration) with reservation directives. While the Law Commission hasn’t called for an end to quotas, it often emphasizes periodic review and better targeting as principles for legal soundness of the policy.
• State Commissions and Others: Many states have their own Backwards Classes Commissions and SC/ST Commissions to address state-specific lists and issues. These bodies mirror the national ones at state level, recommending which castes to list as OBC in the state, looking into complaints (e.g., a state SC Commission might investigate if a Dalit student wasn’t given a reserved college seat). Additionally, High Courts and occasionally specially appointed commissions of inquiry have influenced policy (like the Rohini Commission for OBC sub-categories). There’s also a National Commission for Minorities and Minority Commissions at state levels, which, while not directly about reservation, sometimes lobby for educational quotas for religious minorities or track their representation.
• Coordination and Oversight: The interplay of these institutions creates a system of checks and balances – administrative, advisory, and judicial – to oversee reservations. Parliamentary Committees too (like Committee on Welfare of SC/ST) evaluate how well departments meet their reserved post obligations. In summary, an ecosystem of commissions and agencies works to fine-tune the beneficiary lists, address grievances, and adapt the policy to contemporary needs, ensuring that the affirmative action goals of the Constitution are pursued earnestly.

Criticisms and Debates Surrounding Reservation

• Meritocracy vs Social Justice: The most enduring debate is whether reservations compromise meritocracy. Critics argue that giving admissions or jobs based on group identity rather than solely on scores undermines efficiency and excellence, especially in technical fields. They point to instances of lower cutoff marks for reserved categories, suggesting this could affect overall standards. However, proponents counter that merit cannot be divorced from privilege – a student from an elite urban background has far greater opportunities than a student from a poor, backward-caste village. Reservations, they argue, level the playing field by acknowledging these starting disparities. Over time, many studies have shown that given some support, reserved category candidates perform on par with others, validating that initial “merit” differentials often reflect socio-economic gaps, not ability.
• Creamy Layer and Intra-group Equity: Another debate centers on the creamy layer concept:
  • For OBCs, it’s widely accepted (and legally enforced) that relatively well-off families among backward classes should step aside to allow poorer OBCs a chance. But the adequacy of the creamy layer threshold (currently ₹8 lakh income) is questioned – some say it’s too high and many beneficiaries are second-generation well-settled individuals, while others argue it’s reasonable given middle-class cost of living.
  • For SC/ST, the idea of a creamy layer exclusion is contentious. Historically, policymakers resisted applying it, reasoning that SC/ST backwardness is rooted in birth-based stigma not erased by individual advancement. Yet, as decades pass, a section of Dalits/Adivasis have become economically well-off (due in part to reservation benefits). There are growing calls – including a hint by the Supreme Court in 2024 – that maybe the affluent among SC/ST should voluntarily forego quotas to benefit their poorer brethren. Some states internally attempt to prefer the poorest sub-castes for certain schemes. The counterargument is that even wealthy Dalits can face caste discrimination, so excluding them is unfair and could divide the community.
• Misuse and Fraud: Reservation policies have seen cases of misuse, which fuel criticism:
  • Fake Caste Certificates: Instances where individuals falsely claim to belong to an SC/ST/OBC community to avail benefits. This deprives genuine candidates. Government bodies regularly conduct verification drives; if caught, such appointments or admissions are cancelled and legal action taken. Despite this, enforcement remains a challenge, especially in jobs where verification might happen years later.
  • Political Expansion for Votes: Critics accuse politicians of expanding reservation to groups that are not truly backward for electoral gain. Examples often cited include relatively dominant communities like Jats, Patels, Marathas seeking OBC status – their inclusion is controversial as they traditionally have fared better socio-economically. Populist governments sometimes promise quotas to appease these communities, leading to a cycle of agitations and court battles. This perceived politicization can dilute the original intent of reservations.
  • Perpetuation of Caste Identities: Another criticism is that reservation, while meant to eradicate caste inequality, ironically cements caste identity in public life. Because benefits are tied to one’s official caste status, people are constantly reminded and even incentivized to maintain that identity. Some worry this impedes the vision of a casteless society and keeps the focus on group entitlements.
• Efficiency and Organizational Impact: In sectors like higher education and administration, there are debates on performance. For example, if promotion is based on quota, whether that affects the morale of others or the efficiency of the department. However, studies and government reports often note that diverse teams can be just as efficient, and any initial skill gaps can be bridged with training. The armed forces, which have no caste-based reservation (they have regimental systems though), and the private sector, which largely eschews quotas, are sometimes cited as models purely driven by merit. On the other hand, their diversity lags behind, showing the trade-off.
• Duration of Reservation Policy: The Constitution envisaged political reservations for 10 years, though these have been extended repeatedly. There’s a strand of opinion asking, “How long will reservations continue?” Some feel that after 75 years of independence, it may be time to rethink or phase out quotas, at least for those who have benefited for generations. They propose a re-evaluation of families that have gained from quotas (for instance, government officers’ children) and suggest they compete in general category to give space to others. Conversely, supporters assert that the playing field is still far from level – discrimination and unequal access persist, and until true equality is achieved at the school level and in society, ending reservations would be premature. Most agree that as long as caste-based disparities in indicators like literacy, income, and representation exist, the policy has a role.
• Reservation in Private Sector: A current debate is whether to extend reservation to private sector jobs and educational institutions. With liberalization, government jobs (where quotas apply) are only a small fraction of total employment. Many argue that to truly uplift backward classes, large private companies and industries (which are now major employers) should have diversity quotas or affirmative action policies. Industry bodies generally resist, suggesting instead voluntary targets or scholarships. The government so far prefers a persuasive approach rather than mandate, but some states’ attempts (like mentioned in regional reservations) indicate the debate is intensifying. Balancing social justice with economic freedom remains a tricky policy question here.
• Quality of Education and Alternative Measures: Critics highlight that reservation is a post-facto solution; the root problem is unequal quality of schooling and opportunities. If all children received good education and nutrition, caste or gender would not determine outcomes so starkly. Thus, there is emphasis on policies complementary to reservation: improving public schools, providing coaching to disadvantaged students, and addressing social prejudices. Even staunch supporters of reservation agree it’s not a panacea – it must go hand in hand with broader developmental and attitudinal changes.
• Public Opinion: Indian public opinion on reservation is deeply divided, often along caste lines. Beneficiary groups strongly defend it, while some in the general category see it as an obstacle to their prospects. Surveys show a complex picture: there is broad acceptance for SC/ST quotas (as historically justified), growing acceptance for OBC quotas (post Mandal generation), and mixed views on EWS or additional categories. The creamy layer concept gets support across sections as a fairness measure. This ongoing discourse ensures that reservation policy is continuously scrutinized and debated, a sign of a vibrant democracy grappling with achieving equality.

Comparative International Context

• Affirmative Action Worldwide: India’s reservation system is one of the most extensive and formalized in the world, but many other countries have or had policies to uplift marginalized groups:
  • United States: U.S. practices “affirmative action” in education and employment, focusing on racial minorities (African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans) and women. Unlike India’s quotas, U.S. policies historically set goals or plus-factors rather than fixed reservations. For instance, universities considered race as one factor in admissions to boost diversity, and employers had diversity hiring goals. However, outright quotas were ruled unconstitutional (e.g., Bakke case 1978). In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court further curtailed race-conscious admissions, effectively ending affirmative action in many colleges. This contrasts with India’s robust constitutional backing for quotas.
  • Malaysia: Malaysia has a system of ethnic quotas favoring the Bumiputra (ethnic Malays and indigenous groups) under its New Economic Policy (NEP) since the 1970s. There are reserved quotas for Bumiputra in public universities, civil service, and even in business ownership (like mandated shareholding). This was to reduce the wealth gap between Malays and the Chinese/Indian minorities. Malaysia’s quota levels (often around 50% or more for Bumiputra in certain sectors) and the longevity of the policy draw parallels with India’s, though the basis is ethnic majority vs minorities, rather than historically oppressed castes.
  • South Africa: After apartheid, South Africa implemented affirmative action (termed Employment Equity and Black Economic Empowerment). This includes preferential hiring and promotion of Black Africans, Coloureds, and Indians, and quotas for non-white ownership in companies contracting with the government. Like India, these policies aim to correct systemic discrimination, but they operate through targets and legal audits rather than a constitutionally mandated reservation percentage.
  • Brazil: Brazil introduced quotas in the 2000s for Afro-Brazilians (black and mixed-race) and indigenous people in public universities (typically reserving 50% of seats for students from public schools by law, within which proportionate slots are for blacks, mixed, and indigenous, aligned to their regional population share). They also have quotas in federal jobs (recent law sets aside 20% of federal posts for black Brazilians). This is a caste-parallel, as it’s based on race to address historical slavery and exclusion.
  • Other Examples: Numerous countries have gender quotas in politics – for instance, many European and African countries require a certain percentage of women in Parliament or on candidate lists (Rwanda reserves 30% seats for women but actually achieved ~60% women MPs through additional measures). Nepal’s constitution mandates representation of women, Dalits, and indigenous groups in parliament. Some countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh have reserved seats for women and minorities in legislatures. In education, China has affirmative policies for ethnic minorities in university admissions (bonus points in exams), and some Gulf countries reserve public jobs for natives (a form of affirmative action for citizens).
• Key Differences: India’s system is distinctive for being highly quota-based, explicitly constitutionally enshrined, and centered on caste which is a uniquely stratified social system. Many other systems use softer forms of affirmative action or time-bound policies. Also, India’s scheme covers a huge population fraction (up to 60% now including all categories) – far more extensive than, say, U.S. or South Africa where the target groups are a minority or slight majority of the population.
• Outcomes and Critiques Abroad: Similar debates occur globally. In the U.S., critics of affirmative action claim it can stigmatize beneficiaries or provoke backlash (a debate mirrored in India’s “merit vs quota” discourse). In Malaysia, some argue the Bumiputra policy, while uplifting many Malays, has also led to brain drain of Chinese minorities and should be more merit-based now. South Africa grapples with whether affirmative action has improved the lot of the poorest or just created a black middle class. The overarching theme is that affirmative action is seen as a transitional strategy to create a more level playing field; the tension lies in determining how long it should continue and how to refine it to reach those truly in need.
• Lessons for India and Vice Versa: India’s long experience offers lessons in the importance of regular data collection, transparent criteria, and preventing elite capture of benefits (hence the creamy layer concept). Conversely, India observes international practices to consider new ideas – for instance, setting up diversity indexes, or focusing on economic empowerment beyond quotas. In sum, while contexts differ, the global pursuit of social equity policies resonates with India’s endeavors, validating that affirmative action, in varied forms, is a common policy tool to address historic inequities.

Changes in Reservation Policy Post-2014 (Up to 2025)

• New Constitutional Amendments: The period after 2014 saw significant constitutional changes impacting reservations:
  • 102nd Amendment (2018): This amendment gave constitutional status to the NCBC and inserted Articles 338B and 342A. It effectively centralized the power to notify OBCs at the Union level (Article 342A), triggering debates about state powers. The implications became clear in the Maratha reservation case (2021) where the Supreme Court interpreted that states could no longer unilaterally add groups to OBC lists. To resolve this, the 105th Amendment (August 2021) was passed, explicitly restoring states’ authority to identify OBCs for state purposes while NCBC remains pivotal for the central list.
  • 103rd Amendment (2019): Created the EWS quota of 10% for economically weaker sections among unreserved categories, a landmark shift adding economic criterion to reservations. This has been discussed earlier – its enactment and subsequent judicial affirmation in 2022 have set a precedent that poverty-based affirmative action is constitutionally acceptable.
  • 104th Amendment (2020): Extended the reservation of parliamentary and assembly seats for SCs and STs by another 10 years (till 2030). Notably, this amendment discontinued the reserved seats for Anglo-Indians (which were two nominated seats in Lok Sabha and some in state assemblies). Thus, a minor contraction in political reservation occurred, reflecting perhaps the declining population or political emphasis on that community.
• State-Level Movements and Changes: Various states attempted to recalibrate reservation:
  • Maratha Reservation (Maharashtra): In 2018, Maharashtra enacted a law to give Marathas (around 30% of the state population) a 16% quota under a newly created SEBC category, breaching the 50% limit. This took total reservations in Maharashtra to 68%. While initially effective (and Marathas got interim quota benefits), the policy was struck down by the Supreme Court in May 2021, which also declared that the social and educational backwardness of the Maratha community was not extraordinary enough to justify exceeding 50%. The fallout led to protests by Maratha groups and put pressure on the central government – contributing to the push for more flexibility in the framework (though the Court’s decision stood).
  • Patidar and Jat Agitations: The Patidar community in Gujarat (2015) and Jat community in north Indian states (2016) organized large agitations demanding OBC status. States responded variably – Gujarat introduced a 10% economic backward quota for all non-reserved (which was a precursor to EWS, later subsumed by the central EWS in 2019). Haryana and others tried special categories for Jats which got entangled in legal challenges. These agitations emphasized the theme of relatively dominant but economically pressured groups seeking a share in quotas, reshaping political calculations.
  • Increased OBC Quota in States: Some states revised their OBC lists or percentages post-2014. For example, Telangana attempted to raise OBC reservation; Tamil Nadu continued with 69% by placing its quota law in the Ninth Schedule (shielding it from judicial review to an extent). Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh passed bills to hike total reservation to 68% and 82% respectively by adding new quotas (for Gurjars and others in Rajasthan; for various categories in Chhattisgarh including a higher OBC quota) – these are pending or under judicial scrutiny. Such moves reflect a trend of states pushing the envelope to accommodate more communities, even if it means legal uncertainty.
• Judicial Developments (2014–2025): In addition to those already covered:
  • Supreme Court’s Stance on 50% Cap: The Maratha case reaffirmed it, while the EWS case showed an amendment can bypass it. Thus, the judiciary signaled that unless the Constitution is amended, the 50% rule stands for caste quotas. Post EWS, political discourse emerged on whether the 50% cap itself should be rethought via constitutional amendment – some political voices (as noted in 2025) openly talk about “breaking the 50% wall” to allow quotas in proportion to population.
  • SC/ST Creamy Layer Ruling (2024): A Constitution Bench decision in Aug 2024 (as mentioned, 6:1 majority) allowed states to sub-classify SC/ST for targeted quotas. Justice Gavai’s concurrence explicitly stated that creamy layer exclusion should apply to SC/ST to adhere to equality. Though not immediately self-executing, this principle, if adopted by governments, could mean children of say, a Dalit IAS officer, might not be eligible for SC reservation. By 2025, implementation is pending, but some states like Punjab and Andhra Pradesh have shown interest in dividing SC quotas among sub-groups (often called categorization, like Punjab’s ABC categories for SC). This ruling provides a green light for such policies to be designed.
  • Local Body Reservations: Courts intervened to ensure empirical data for OBC quotas in panchayats/municipalities. States like Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha had to set up commissions in 2022 to gather data and reinstate OBC reservation in local elections, which they did by 2023. This increased the bureaucratic rigor around local reservations, ensuring they are backed by data.
• Caste Census Initiatives: Post-2014, and especially by 2021, the chorus for a caste census grew (as detailed earlier). In 2023–24, Bihar’s completion of a caste survey and calls from other states (Tamil Nadu, Odisha, etc.) mark a shift toward data-driven policy, potentially influencing post-2025 reservation landscape. If new data emerges showing higher proportions of OBCs or EBCs, political pressure may mount to align quotas with those numbers.
• Women’s Reservation and Diversity: ​The passage of the Women’s Reservation Act, 2023—officially the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act—marks a historic shift in India’s approach to gender representation. This legislation mandates a 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and the Delhi Assembly, including within the quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The reservation will be implemented after the next delimitation exercise, expected post-2026, and will remain in effect for 15 years from its commencement.
  • Prior to this national legislation, several states had proactively increased women’s representation in local governance.
  • For instance, Gujarat (2015) and Maharashtra (2018) expanded women’s reservation in local bodies from 33% to 50%.
  • Additionally, Chhattisgarh (2022) took a significant step by reserving 50% of all state government jobs for women, showcasing a commitment to gender inclusivity in public employment.
• Public and Political Sentiment: By 2025, reservation is an entrenched part of India’s socio-political fabric. No major political party opposes the principle – disagreements are only on fine-tuning (e.g., one party might champion a caste census and raising OBC quota, another might push EWS and sub-categorization). The general category sentiment has somewhat shifted to acceptance that some form of economic criteria needed to be added (hence EWS was not met with mass protests by general category, unlike Mandal). At the same time, demands from communities not yet benefited (or wanting larger share) keep arising, meaning the system is under constant pressure to adapt. The future trajectory may include raising the 50% limit, finer targeting by excluding creamy layers across all categories, and possibly extending affirmative action to private sector or other spheres – all subjects of active discussion as India’s democracy negotiates equity and excellence.

Conclusion: The reservation system in India, from its origins in colonial-era reforms to its status in 2025, exemplifies the nation’s effort to translate the ideal of equality into practice. Over the decades, this policy has opened doors for millions from suppressed castes and communities, gradually altering the composition of classrooms, offices, and legislatures. Key milestones – whether the Poona Pact, the Constitution’s affirmative provisions, the Mandal Commission, or the recent EWS quota – each expanded the ambit of social justice. Alongside successes in representation, the system has faced continual refinement through judicial pronouncements and public debate, grappling with complex questions of merit, creamy layer, and scope. As India grows and changes, the reservation policy too evolves – moving toward data-driven approaches (caste census), exploring new dimensions (economic, gender, regional), and aiming to strike a balance between uplifting the marginalized and nurturing talent across society. For students of history and policy, India’s reservation saga offers a profound case study of social engineering, demonstrating both the power and the challenges of state intervention in addressing historical inequalities. The journey is ongoing, reflective of India’s democratic ethos of continuous self-correction in the quest for an equitable society.

1. Trace the evolution of the reservation policy in India from its origins in colonial times to the present. (250 words)
2. Critically examine the impact of caste-based reservations on social equality in India and the arguments surrounding the ‘creamy layer’ issue. (250 words)
3. Analyze the role of judicial interventions in shaping India’s affirmative action policies, citing key Supreme Court judgments. (250 words)