Reservations and Affirmative Action: Analysing Constitutional Provisions
Reservations and affirmative action in India have been the two most important areas of discussion within the ambit of social justice in the country, as they focus on overcoming historical injustices and promoting inclusivity in education, employment, and politics. The Indian Constitution contains provisions to uplift communities that have suffered disempowerment, such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). However, the interpretation and implementation of such provisions have been subjected to judicial scrutiny, political contestations, and changing socio-economic contexts. This paper analyses the constitutional provisions regarding reservations and affirmative action in India, their judicial interpretations, and the challenges they face in the contemporary context.
Constitutional Basis for Reservations and Affirmative Action
Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination and Special Provisions
Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth. However, specific clauses allow affirmative action. Article 15 (3) allows the State to make unique dispositions for women and children. The first constitutional amendment (1951) introduced Article 15 (4) to allow reservations for classes, SCs, and social and educational STS. The 93rd Amendment (2005) introduced Article 15 (5), allowing reserves in private educational institutions, excluding minority institutions. In addition, Article 15 (6), added by the 103rd Amendment (2019), provides a 10% reserve for EWS in educational institutions.1
Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
It refers to equality of opportunity in public employment and affirmative action. Article 16 (4) provides for reserving government jobs for specific social and educationally backward classes. Amendments No. 77 and 81 added Articles 162(4A) and 16 (4b), providing the reservation of SCS and STS promotions and the provision of delayed vacancies to be filled in subsequent years.
Other Relevant Provisions
Thus, Articles 3303and 3324provide for reserving seats in the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies for SCs and STs. Article 3355balances reservation against administrative exigency, while Article 46, a directive principle of the state policy, tells the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections.
Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Cases on Reservations in India
Constitutional Bench has balanced equality and social justice in action structures and affirmative action through various decisions. The judicial pronouncements in numerous reference cases have defined reservations’ constitutional position under articles 15 and 16, keeping them within constitutional limits and regarding their intended purpose.
1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
In this case, a challenge was thrown to caste-based reservations in education. Under its communal government order, the Madras government reserved specific seats for various communities in educational institutions. The said case was put up by Champakam Dorairajan, a Bramane woman, against the system, contending that she had better academic credentials than few candidates in the reserved category but was denied entry into a caste-based medical school on the grounds of education. The Supreme Court reversed the reservation policy because it was inconsistent with Article 15 (1), prohibiting caste-based discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, gender, or place of birth. It delivered fundamental rights on social justice measures vis-a-vis a rejection of reserves based on castes not constitutionally provided for. As a result, the first amendment of the Constitution (1951) introduced Article 15 (4), which empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of backward social and educational classes (SEBCs), scheduled castes (SCS), and scheduled tribes (STS). This case settled the principle that reservations need a constitutional mandate and cannot be arbitrarily imposed by the government.6
2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
This case is one of the most critical decisions on OBC reservations and lays down the framework for the extension and implementation of reservations. The case stemmed from a government decision to implement the Mandal Commission report, which recommended 27% reservations for other backward classes in central government jobs. The Supreme Court upheld the reservation of 27% of OBCs and imposed some significant restrictions. It held that total reservations cannot cross 50%, maintaining a balance between affirmative action and access based on merit. The court also introduced the concept of the creamy layer in that it held that economically advanced OBCs would be excluded from reservations so that the genuinely disadvantaged could receive the benefits. It held promotions under reserve are unconstitutional as Article 16 (4) provided for reservations only at the initial stages. It further emphasized that resumes should not be permanent and should be reviewed periodically. This decision upheld the argument that while affirmative action is warranted, it must not outweigh meritocracy or administrative efficiency.7
3. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)
Casual Acceptance by Indra Sawhney judgments then came constitutional amendments through Parliament, permitting reserves on SCS and STS promotions. Such reservations were challenged through the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union Of India (2006). The Supreme Court upheld the amendments; however, the application was conditioned stringently. The Court also settled the question that reservation in promotion is permissible with proof by the government that the class is socially and educationally backward, inadequately represented in public employment, and that the reservation does not adversely affect administrative efficiency. The court reaffirmed the legislative power of Parliament to amend the Constitution by saying that it cannot destroy the basic structure, which would mean equality and efficiency in management. Unlike initial commitments, promotions with a reservation should not require justification every time they are put in place. The case clarified that reservation policies must be performance-based and not blanket privileges.8
4. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister (2021)
A law granting Maratha the status of Other Backward Classes or OBCs for the sake of reservations was approved by the Maharashtra government. The law was challenged, claiming it violated the 50% ceiling on reserves in the Indira Sawhney judgment. The Supreme Court set aside Maratha’s reservation, stating that the ceiling of 50% of reservations remains binding. Any relaxation must be based on extraordinary circumstances, which Maharashtra has not shown. The court saw the concept of states being able to unilaterally classify communities as OBCs being rendered ineffective. With the 102nd constitutional amendment, the power to identify backward classes lies with the NCBC (National Commission for Backward Classes). Hence, further, it was stated in the judgment that meritocracy has to be reaffirmed: affirmatory actions are required, but excessive state intervention in merit-based selection should not be allowed. This decision dilutes a politically motivated extension of reservations and underwrites judicial supervision over state policies.9
EWS Reservations (2019) – The 103rd Constitutional Amendment
The introduction of the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the general category under the 103rd Amendment to the Constitution marked an essential divergence from the affirmative action model based on castes. Reservations should not be justified on economic criteria alone, which was the basis on which the amendment was challenged. In a split verdict, the Supreme Court upheld EWS reservations, stating that the Parliament can create new kinds of affirmative action. The Court also said that economic criteria were sufficient to enable affirmative action despite previous judgments stating that social and educational backwardness should primarily govern it. It further noted that EWS reservations can surpass the 50% cap since they will not infringe upon existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs. The judgment thus introduced a new avenue of consideration for affirmative action wherein economic disadvantage could be judged independent of caste. This ruling undoubtedly broadened the umbrella of reservations but further raised the issue of whether economic criteria contravene the spirit behind the Constitution regarding affirmative action.10
Debates on Reservation Policies in India
The maximum reservation of fifty percent, set in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), became one of the most important defenses by the judiciary against excess reservations. The Supreme Court ruled that total reservations should not exceed fifty percent to balance affirmative action and access based on merit. However, states like Tamil Nadu crossed this limit, resulting in endless legal debates on whether CAP is a rigid or flexible constitutional principle pivoted around the socio-political conditions. Although the government keeps on maintaining the ceiling, some voices justify the re-evaluation of this ceiling in terms of regional delay and historical disadvantages.
The creamy layer principle exists because OBC should benefit from excluding those economically well-off in backward classes. This principle is meant to exclude the most elite among OBCs and was discussed in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) about its applicability to SCS and STS. It would be crucial that the apex court found that the creamy principle of the layer could go so much as to SCs and STS in promotions. There would be this raging debate on whether reservation should be caste-based alone or include an economic filter. This further advances the discussion on the changes that affirmative action may undergo while the judiciary tries to balance social justice against merit.
Expanding reserves to new categories further complicates the jurisprudence of affirmative action. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reserves for economically weaker sections (EWS) between unreserved categories, marked a significant change in caste-based reserves. This amendment was challenged for diluting the central objective of affirmative action, which traditionally focused on social and educational backwardness rather than economic disadvantage alone. The advocate of EWS reservations for the Supreme Court has created a parallel system, raising concerns about whether affirmative action is moving away from its original intention to address historical oppression.
The distinction between horizontal and vertical reserves has also been the subject of judicial scrutiny. Vertical reservations apply to SCS, STS, OBCs, and EWS, while horizontal reserves meet across categories such as women, people with disabilities, and trans people. The courts have discussed whether horizontal reserves should be implemented in each vertical category or all categories. Ensuring that horizontal reserves do not disturb the vertical quotas has been a character challenge, requiring careful judicial interpretation to guarantee justice in affirmative action policies.
Political pressures on reserve policy have been a heated matter, as a sizable group of dominant castes agitate to be included in OBC without any valid socioeconomic ground. Supreme courts in cases like Maratha (Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Minister -Chief, 2021) significantly prevent such politically motivated classifications. The judiciary sought the constitutional integrity of affirmative action against any misuse of such provision for electoral gains while striking down excessive or arbitrary reserves.
Article 15 (3) of gender-based affirmative action allows the state to make special provisions for women, acknowledging its historical disadvantage in social and economic spheres. But the courts also validate some paternalistic policies that breed gender stereotypes instead of empowering women. Although there have been very progressive rulings deeming reserves for women in education and employment, judicial interpretations keep developing, thus defining the extent of gender-specific affirmative action in India. The challenge continues to ensure such affirmative action policies for women will benefit absolute equality rather than simply even out those antiquated gender roles.
Conclusion
Reserves and affirmative action were critical in ensuring social justice in India. Such implementation, however, demands balancing historical injustices and constraints the judicial system poses against changing socio-economic realities. While relevant today, caste-based reserves have now had a relatively higher increase in EWS quotas in favor of a shift toward economic criteria. In advancing, India has to be dynamic so that affirmative action policies remain inclusive, directed, and flexible to present needs.
1INDIA CONST. art, 15
2INDIA CONST. art, 16
3INDIA CONST. art, 330
4INDIA CONST. art, 332
5INDIA CONST. art, 335
6State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCC 351
7Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 429
8 M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2021) 2 SCC 798
9Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 746
10 EWS Reservation Judgment: SC Upholds 103rd Amendment in 3-2 Majority, Supreme Court Observer (Nov. 7, 2022), https://www.scobserver.in/reports/ews-reservation-judgment-sc-upholds-103rd-amendment-in-3-2- split-verdict/.
