Back
Vizmins - Visual Learning for Self Study

Uncapping Reservations - A Conundrum

Views: 17

Uncapping Reservations - A Conundrum

Hon’ble Apex Court has come to be seized of the issue of lifting of the fifty percent cap it has put on reservations in the case of MR Balaji versus State of Mysore [(1963) Supp. 1 SCR 39]. It is hearing arguments in a case where State of Maharashtra has made reservationbeyond 50% limit by creating a special quota for Maratha community. Ten states have either passed or have proposed such legislations to prescribe quotas for local residents / natives. Latest is Haryana having passed new Haryana State Employment of Local Residents Act, 2020 (with a miragelike sunset clause which means it will cease 10 years after its enactment). Alarmingly, even the Central Government is supporting these quotas for locals. The 50% cap was broken earlier also when 10% reservation was made for economically backward sections. The same is pending adjudication before Apex Court. Any curbs on employers, who scout talent nationally, for limiting their choice to a particular state’s boundaries is bound to raise deep concerns, along with challenges to these laws, as this might not only adversely impact their businesses and but also infringe fundamental rights of citizens.

The extent of reservation, which can be made in public employment, has been considered by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments.In order to examine the need of uncapping reservations, it is essential to look into the philosophy which led to reservation provisions in the Constitution of India. The gist of our Constitution is compressed in the Preamble of the Constitution which places enormous emphasis on justice, liberty and equality; all of which are words of passion and resonate positively with a regime that emphasizes the well-being of the disadvantaged groups. The following remarks of Dr. BR Ambedkar, on how the Preamble is to be interpreted, are revealing:

“It means a way of life which recognizes Liberty, Equality and Fraternity which are not treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of Democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from Equality and Equality cannot be divorced from Liberty, nor can Liberty and Equality be divorced from Fraternity.” (Italics supplied)

 

The Constituent Assembly considered ideals of the freedom movement to be converted into constitutional provisions. One of them was the protection of socially backward communities. The call for establishing an egalitarian society found its vociferous supporter in Jawaharlal Nehru. At that time the issue of reservation was pleaded, explained, accommodated and accepted with the national spirit to assimilate sections of society, including the intended beneficiaries of the reservation policy into the national mainstream.The discussion on reservation revolved around the Report on Minority Rights which was presented by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.Speaking on the Report, P.S. Deshmukh said that the report was highly satisfactory; but at the same time, he voiced the fear that the so-called majority might be marginalized. (Italics supplied)On the other hand, members from the depressed classes, like S. Nagappa and Jaipal Singh, demanded representation in proportion to their population. The affirmative action in favour of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes, put in place in 1950, has since been bolstered and amplified in a manner that even Dr. B.R. Ambedkar could not have foreseen.

 

The equality code is enshrined in Articles 14-18. Article 14 confers a right by enacting a prohibition directed against the State by providing that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the laws or the equal protection of the laws within India. However, this right, which is absolute in form, is subject to any law based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by such law. Article 15 prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth or any of them, subject to specified exceptions in Article 15 (3), (4) and (5). Article 16 (2) includes “residence” among the grounds on which discrimination cannot be made along with religion, race, caste, sex, descent and place of birth. However, Article 16 (3) is an exception to Article 16 (2) as it enables the Parliament to make a law about requirement of residence within a State or UT prior to such employment or appointment.

 

These above provisions clearly indicate that the State Governments have no power to make laws prescribing requirement as to residence within the State prior to employment or appointment. However, protagonists of enactment of such laws by the State Governments take refuge under Article 41, read with Article 37, which provides that the State shall make effective provision for securing the right to work. These Articles find place in Chapter IV of the Constitution containing Directive Principles of State Policy – which are, avowedly, fundamental in the governance of the country but are not enforceable by any court. Besides, Hon’ble Supreme Court has mulled over the role of directive principles in the Constitution of India in a number cases and has held that the directive principles of State policy have to conform to and run subsidiary to fundamental rights.

 

Reservations have been enlarged gradually from less than 28% to 49% (12% for ST, 16% for SC and 21% for OBCs) over seven decades. More and more communities are clamouring for reservations. Unfortunate fallout of all this is not only flouting of individual merit but also causing reverse discrimination against general categories. In a Times of India survey held in the current month, 86% of the readers opined that reservations should be capped at 50% and about 90% of the readers did not find job quotas for localsworkable.   Reservation policy, as is extant today, is completely out of sync with the spirit of fundamental right to equality as enshrined in the Constitution of India. It is feared that crossing the current 50% ceiling might eventually lead to 100% quotas with zero latitude for merit.In addition, local quotas may be bad for the nation as all citizens have the freedom to move freely and to reside and settle in any part of the country [Article 19 (1) (d) and (e)]. When residents of different states come together, the country’s fraternity, unity and integrity get enhanced.

 

Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address said that “our fathers brought forth……. a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”In view of the foregoing discussion, the emphasis of the Governments ought to be skilling, reskilling and upskilling their residents to augment their employability rather than taking regressive step of reservation so as to sound the death knell of merit. It is hoped Hon’ble Supreme Court will withstand this ‘populist push’ and uphold constitutional spirit and values.

 
 
By: Shrawan Sawhney (IAS Retd.)

The Views expressed by the author are personal.

Notes on Uncapping Reservations - A Conundrum

📌 Context and Current Developments

  • The Supreme Court of India is re-examining its 50% cap on reservations, first laid down in the landmark case M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963).

  • The issue has re-emerged due to Maharashtra’s law granting reservation to the Maratha community, which breaches the 50% ceiling.

  • At least 10 states have introduced or proposed laws for local job quotas, e.g., the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020.

  • Central Government has also supported these moves in some cases.

  • A significant precedent was already set when 10% EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) quota was introduced through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, pushing reservation beyond 50%.

🧭 Philosophy and Purpose of Reservation

  • The Indian Constitution aims to build an egalitarian society, ensuring social justice.

  • Reservation is a tool for affirmative action, to uplift Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

  • This aligns with the Preamble of the Constitution, which promotes Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

  • Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized that Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity must go together—one cannot be separated from the others without harming democracy.

🏛️ Constituent Assembly Debates

  • Jawaharlal Nehru supported the idea of reservation to assimilate backward communities into the national mainstream.

  • Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s Minority Rights Committee laid the groundwork for initial reservation provisions.

  • Members like Jaipal Singh and S. Nagappa from marginalized communities demanded proportional representation.

  • On the other hand, concerns were also raised by some members that majorities could be marginalized in the process.

📜 Relevant Constitutional Provisions

  • Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws.

  • Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

    • Article 15(3): Allows special provisions for women and children.

    • Article 15(4) & 15(5): Allows special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes (including SCs and STs).

  • Article 16(1) & 16(2): Ensure equal opportunity in public employment; prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.

  • Article 16(3): Allows Parliament (not states) to make laws prescribing residence as a requirement for certain jobs in the state.

  • Articles 19(1)(d) & (e): Guarantee the right to move freely and reside in any part of India.

  • Articles 37 & 41: Contain Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), suggesting the state should secure the right to work, but these are not justiciable (i.e., not legally enforceable in courts).

⚖️ Judicial Interpretation & Constitutional Morality

  • The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that fundamental rights (like Article 14 and 16) take precedence over Directive Principles (like Article 41).

  • Laws mandating local employment quotas by states can violate Article 16(2) and Article 19(1)(d) & (e).

  • Court has also examined “reasonable classification” under Article 14, where reservations are allowed if:

    • There is an intelligible differentia (reasonable basis of classification).

    • It has a rational nexus with the objective of the law.

📊 Data and Trends

  • Over the years, reservation has grown from ~28% to 49% (12% for STs, 16% for SCs, and 21% for OBCs).

  • EWS quota of 10% has taken total reservations above 50%.

  • More communities, like Marathas, Patidars, Jats, Kapus, have demanded inclusion in reservation categories.

  • Surveys (e.g., Times of India, 2025) show:

    • 86% of respondents support cap at 50%.

    • 90% oppose local job quotas.

⚠️ Concerns with Uncapping Reservations

  • Erosion of Merit: Excessive reservations could compromise meritocracy in education and employment.

  • Reverse Discrimination: General category individuals may feel disadvantaged, causing social disharmony.

  • Threat to Unity: State-specific job quotas undermine the national unity and free movement.

  • Populism over Policy: Unchecked political populism may lead to 100% reservation, violating the basic structure of the Constitution.

  • Impact on Private Sector: Restrictions on hiring by residence may hurt businesses and investor confidence.

🧠 Way Forward

  • Emphasis should be on skilling, reskilling, and upskilling, especially in underprivileged areas.

  • Focus on creating equal opportunities, not just equal outcomes.

  • Encourage merit-based competition while continuing targeted affirmative action.

  • Any expansion of reservation must be backed by data and pass the test of constitutional validity.

  • Maintain the delicate balance between social justice and fundamental rights.

🗣️ Quotable Quotes for Mains

  • Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: “Liberty cannot be divorced from Equality and Equality cannot be divorced from Liberty.”

  • Abraham Lincoln: “All men are created equal.”

  • Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Case (1992): “Reservation should not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary situations.”

Mains-Based Questions on Uncapping Reservations - A Conundrum

Q1. The 50% ceiling on reservations is increasingly being challenged by states in the name of social justice. Critically examine whether this ceiling should be retained or revisited in light of constitutional morality and contemporary socio-economic realities.

Model Answer Framework:

Introduction:

  • Reservation is a constitutionally sanctioned tool of affirmative action to promote social justice.

  • The Supreme Court, in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), capped reservations at 50%, except under extraordinary circumstances.

Arguments for Retaining the 50% Cap:

  • Prevents excessive fragmentation and reverse discrimination.

  • Meritocracy is essential for efficient governance and administration.

  • Avoids populist misuse of reservation for electoral gains.

  • Upholds the basic structure of the Constitution, including equality before law (Article 14).

Arguments for Revisiting the Cap:

  • Changing socio-economic dynamics: Large sections of society remain underprivileged but are excluded (e.g., Marathas, Jats, Kapus).

  • The 103rd Amendment introduced 10% EWS quota, already breaching the ceiling.

  • Reservation is not just a numerical benefit but a tool for structural transformation.

Constitutional Angle:

  • While Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) allow for reservations, they must operate within the ambit of Article 14.

  • Any move to uncap must respect constitutional morality, which calls for a balance between equality of opportunity and social equity.

Conclusion:

  • The Supreme Court’s pending judgment on these issues will define the future course.

  • Meanwhile, better data, targeted policies, and a focus on education and skill development should be the preferred approach.

Q2. Local employment quotas in states are often justified on grounds of regional economic justice. Analyze the constitutional and economic implications of such quotas.

Model Answer Framework:

Introduction:

  • Several states, including Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, and Jharkhand, have passed laws mandating job reservations for locals in the private sector.

Constitutional Implications:

  • Violates Article 16(2): Discrimination on the basis of residence is prohibited.

  • Article 16(3) allows such laws only when Parliament, not states, enacts them.

  • Contradicts Article 19(1)(d) & (e): Right to move freely and reside anywhere in India.

  • Undermines national integration and fraternity.

Economic Implications:

  • Discourages inter-state labour mobility and national talent pooling.

  • Could deter investment and hinder industrial growth due to limited hiring flexibility.

  • Reduces competitiveness and productivity.

Directive Principles Angle:

  • Article 41 (Right to work) is a directive principle but not enforceable.

  • DPSPs must be harmonized with fundamental rights, not override them.

Conclusion:

  • Instead of parochial job policies, states must invest in skill development, education, and infrastructure to attract employers.

  • Judiciary must uphold constitutional balance while governments focus on inclusive growth.

Q3. “Reservation, if expanded beyond limits, may lead to the erosion of merit and national unity.” Discuss in the context of recent trends in state-level reservation policies.

Model Answer Framework:

Introduction:

  • Originally intended as a temporary measure for marginalized communities, reservation policies have expanded substantially.

  • Recent state-level attempts to extend reservation to politically influential communities threaten to tip the balance.

Issues with Excessive Reservation:

  • Merit dilution in jobs and education, affecting overall administrative efficiency.

  • Reverse discrimination against general category or economically weaker but socially advanced groups.

  • Undermines national unity by fostering regionalism and identity politics.

  • Risks transforming reservation into a political tool rather than a tool for social justice.

Constitutional Vision:

  • The Constitution promotes fraternity and equality, not fragmentation.

  • Article 335 requires that reservations must not compromise administrative efficiency.

Judicial Warnings:

  • In Indra Sawhney, the court warned against creating a system of “reservation for all”.

  • Unchecked expansion could result in 100% reservations, leaving no space for merit.

Conclusion:

  • The focus must shift toward economic upliftment, capacity building, and institutional reforms rather than reservation as a one-size-fits-all solution.

Q4. Evaluate whether reservation policies in India today are aligned with the original spirit of the Constitution. Suggest reforms to bring the reservation policy back in harmony with constitutional ideals.

Model Answer Framework:

Introduction:

  • The Constitutional intent behind reservations was to uplift historically disadvantaged communities.

  • Over time, these policies have been expanded and politicized.

Original Spirit of the Constitution:

  • Promote substantive equality, not permanent division.

  • Temporary, transformational measure, not a tool for perpetual entitlement.

  • Must align with Justice, Equality, and Fraternity as mentioned in the Preamble.

Divergences from Original Spirit:

  • Political pressures have led to demands by dominant communities.

  • Economic backwardness now being used as a criterion without addressing structural inequalities.

  • Introduction of state-specific local quotas may undermine national cohesion.

Reforms Suggested:

  • Reassess eligibility criteria: Focus on multi-dimensional poverty index rather than just caste or income.

  • Create an independent body to review reservation policies periodically.

  • Invest more in education, skilling, and healthcare for underprivileged communities.

  • Sunset clauses for certain categories to ensure dynamic and revisable benefits.

Conclusion:

  • Reservation must remain a means to an end, not the end itself.

  • Reforming the policy in light of current socio-economic realities while upholding constitutional morality is the way forward.

Share the Blog:

GS 1

GS 2

GS 3

GS 4

Home

GS 1

GS 2

GS 3

GS 4