Introduction: Reservation in India — Purpose, Challenges & Evolution


Introduction: Reservation in India — Purpose, Challenges & Evolution

The policy of reservation in India was born out of a recognition that certain communities — most notably the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and later the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) — had been subject to structural disadvantage, discrimination, and exclusion. The aim: to enable their substantive participation in education and public employment, and thus promote social justice.

Reservation operates in two broad senses: vertical reservation (i.e., quotas for SCs, STs, OBCs, EWS) and horizontal reservation (within categories for e.g., persons with disabilities, women, etc.). The interplay among rights to equality (Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution of India) and the power of the State to make “special provisions” for backward classes has been the subject of decades of litigation.

Over time, several key issues have emerged:

  • The permissible ceiling on reservation percentage (famously the 50% cap)
  • Whether promotions in public employment are covered by reservation
  • Whether economically weaker sections (EWS) can be given quotas
  • Whether communities within a reserved category (say SC) can be further “sub-classified”
  • How “meritorious” candidates in reserved categories are to be treated relative to general category seats
  • How states may craft internal rules (carrying forward unfilled seats, etc.)

Given this backdrop, recent judgments have pushed the envelope in various ways.

Key Recent Judgments & Legal Developments

Here are some of the most important recent decisions and shifts in jurisprudence — how they articulate the law, what they permit or disallow, and their implications.

1. Sub-classification within SC/ST: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

One of the most significant recent judgments is State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024/2025) by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India. The majority held 6:1 that state governments may create sub-classifications within the SC/ST lists — meaning that different castes within “SC” can be further divided for reservation purposes.

What the Court held

  • The Court overruled an earlier precedent (E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.) which held that SCs form a homogenous category and cannot be sub-divided.
  • The majority reasoned that social and economic realities support the view that even within SC/ST categories some communities are significantly more backward than others, and hence sub-classification is valid under Articles 15 and 16.
  • The dissent (Justice Bela M Trivedi) cautioned against departing from stare-decisis and said that using Article 142 (extraordinary powers of the Supreme Court) cannot be a vehicle to rewrite substantive law.

Implications

  • States now have clearer legal authority to carve out internal quotas within reserved categories (SC/ST), allowing more finely-targeted affirmative action.
  • This may help ensure that the “more backwards” sub-groups within SC/ST get due share, a criticism historically made that benefits were reaped by a few dominant sub-castes.
  • At the same time, this raises practical issues: how to identify sub-groups; how to avoid internal rivalries; how to ensure visibility of the data supporting classification.
  • It may also provoke litigation pushing states to justify classification schemes on empirical data.

2. Migration of Reserved Category Candidates to General Category Seats: Union of India v. Sajib Roy (2025)

Another recent decision is Union of India v. Sajib Roy (2025). The core issue: whether candidates from reserved categories who secure high marks above the general category cutoff can claim seats in the unreserved (general) category.

Holding

  • The Court held that if the recruitment rules or employment notification do not impose a specific embargo that reserved category candidates cannot migrate to general category seats, then those candidates who qualify on merit can indeed be considered for unreserved seats.
  • But if the rules/employment notice impose a prohibition/embargo on such migration, then migration is not permitted.

Significance

  • This is an important development because it opens the door for reserved category candidates to not be limited to their quota if they outperform general category cut-offs — promoting a merit-plus-reservation balance.
  • At the same time, it preserves the power of states/authorities to frame rules as they deem fit.
  • This, however, may lead to complexities: how to craft recruitment rules; whether migrating candidates reduce opportunities for other general category aspirants; how to ensure transparency.

3. EWS (“Economically Weaker Sections”) Reservation: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

While a little less “recent”, this judgment remains foundational for any discussion of current reservation policy. In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 which introduced a 10% quota for EWS in education and public employment.

Key points

  • The Court held that the 103rd Amendment is constitutionally valid; it amended Articles 15 and 16 to allow reservation for economically weaker sections.
  • The Court also clarified that the existing reservation framework (for SC/ST/OBC) remains intact, and EWS is an additional layer of vertical reservation.
  • The Court left open some questions of implementation (data, infrastructure, etc.) but affirmed the principle.

Why this matters now

  • As states propose or implement higher quotas, the EWS mantle shows how reservation policy is still evolving.
  • The inclusion of economic criteria in reservation pushes beyond purely caste-based criteria, opening new debate: how to balance caste + economic disadvantage.
  • It also has implications for how far reservation can go (ceiling, “over-and-above” seats, etc.).

4. Horizontal Reservation & Meritorious Reserved Candidates: (e.g., Ramnaresh v. State of M.P. & Deependra Yadav v. State of M.P.)

Two recent decisions handle nuances of horizontal reservation and the rights of reserved category candidates who out-perform.

Ramnaresh (2024)

In Ramnaresh v. State of M.P. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2058), the Court addressed a situation where a meritorious SC/ST/OBC candidate (from a government school) was kept confined to a “reserved quota” and denied an unreserved general category government-school quota seat despite higher merit. The Court held that the methodology—restricting migration to UR-GS quota for such candidates—was unsustainable.

Deependra Yadav (2024)

In Deependra Yadav v. State of M.P. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 724), the Court upheld the High Court’s direction that the recruitment list had to be merged and normalized when two separate main examinations were held; the reserved category candidate who did not avail reservation benefits had to be treated as a general category candidate based on merit.

Interpretation

  • These rulings emphasize that meritorious reserved category candidates should not be rigidly segregated into reserved seats if they qualify for general category seats on merit.
  • It strengthens the principle that reservation is not limiting but enabling — i.e., it should not operate as a ceiling preventing upward mobility of reserved category candidates when they outperform.
  • It adds complications for states/institutions: recruitment rules must be carefully drafted; transparency in how horizontal quotas are applied is critical; data on merit vs reserved category must be maintained.

5. The Ceiling Rule & 50% Cap: Revisited

Historically, a marquee feature of Indian reservation law has been the “50 % cap” — first laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). A 9-judge bench held that reservations should generally not exceed 50% of available seats, subject to exceptional circumstances.

However, the recent jurisprudence has indicated flexibility in this rule:

  • In the EWS case the Court implied that “over-and-above” reservation may be permissible (i.e., creating extra seats).
  • The sub-classification case suggests states may vary within categories, potentially affecting how the cap is counted.
  • The exact contours of how the 50 % rule will be treated going forward remain under development.

Critical reflections

  • The 50% cap was originally held as a “rule of caution” rather than a rigid unchangeable limit.
  • States seeking to breach or go beyond 50% (especially for local bodies or state-level recruitment) will likely face constitutional scrutiny.
  • The challenge: balancing legitimate affirmative action with equality rights of other groups; avoiding reverse discrimination; maintaining merit and administrative efficiency.

Thematic Issues & Emerging Patterns

Beyond individual judgments, a few thematic currents are visible in the current jurisprudence on reservation:

A. Data, Empirical Basis & Targeting

One recurring concern: reservation policy must be grounded in empirical data that shows differential backwardness or under-representation. For example, in the sub-classification case, the Court emphasised “social and economic reality”. The state must justify classifications.

As states craft new schemes (for example Karnataka’s internal quotas among SCs) they must produce credible surveys and data. Without such data, classifications may be vulnerable to challenge.

B. Merit-Reservation Interface

The recent rulings (Sajib Roy, Ramnaresh, Deependra Yadav) show that reservation mechanisms cannot rigidly constrain the upward mobility of reserved category candidates who outperform. The policy is moving towards “reservation + merit” rather than “reservation vs merit” binaries. This helps mitigate one common criticism that reservation stymies overall merit or reduces standards.

C. Horizontal & Vertical Overlaps

As more axes of reservation appear (economic status, persons with disabilities, women, etc.), managing overlaps becomes complex. States must ensure clarity in rules: how many seats for reserved category, how many for EWS, how many for horizontal categories, whether migration is permitted, how normalization works. Procedural clarity and transparency will be key.

D. Sub-categorisation & Internal Equity

The sub-classification within SC/ST opens the door to more refined affirmative action: but it also poses risks of intra-category competition, administrative complexity, and potential dilution of benefits. States will need to ensure that the sub-categorisation is meaningful (i.e., addresses real backwardness) and not simply a political device.

E. Implementation & Administrative Realities

Legality is one side; implementation is another. Even with favourable judgments, the actual roll-out — clear advertisement of posts, timely identification of reserved category candidates, identification of “creamy-layer” (if applicable), monitoring of seats filled vs backlog — remains a challenge. Many states and institutions may struggle with capacity, data systems, and oversight.

Challenges & Critiques: A Balanced View

No discussion of reservation is complete without recognising the criticisms, difficulties and inherent tensions:

  • Ceiling concerns: If reservation aggregates grow (for example, 50% + EWS + persons with disabilities + women), the question arises whether the effective “open” category is shrinking excessively. This may raise questions of fairness and equality of opportunity for the non-reserved.
  • Merit concerns: While the recent rulings address merit-reservation integration, some argue that over-emphasis on quota may lower standards or create adverse administrative consequences. Others respond that “merit” itself is socially conditioned.
  • Data deficits: Many states lack reliable caste-wise, sub-caste-wise, or economic data to justify fine-grained quotas; this undermines transparency and may lead to arbitrary classifications.
  • Resource constraints: Reservation is only meaningful if backed by adequate infrastructure—education, training, support systems. Without this, reserved seats may remain underutilised or fill up with less prepared candidates, which can fuel backlash.
  • Political economy: Reservation is deeply bound up with electoral politics, patronage and vote bank dynamics. This sometimes complicates policy rationales and procedural fairness.
  • Dynamic social realities: Caste, economic disadvantage, and access are not static; mobility happens. The policy must remain attuned to shifting patterns of exclusion and privilege.

What Lies Ahead: Possible Directions

Given the legal trajectory and socio-political environment, a few likely developments stand out:

  1. More Sub-Classification & Micro-Targeting
    States may increasingly use sub-classification (within SC/ST and OBC) to target more backward communities. This could increase the granularity of reservation policy (e.g., by region, gender, economic status, caste subgroup). But the success will depend on data and administrative capacity.

  2. Greater Integration of Economic Criteria
    The EWS quota signalled the opening of economic criteria. Future policy may more explicitly blend caste + economic vulnerability (for example, “most disadvantaged within reserved category”). Courts seem supportive of nuanced approaches (e.g., creamy layer within SC/ST).

  3. Re-thinking the Ceiling
    As quota arrangements accumulate, pressure will remain to re-examine the 50% cap. Some states may attempt ‘over-and-above’ seats, extra-merit seats, or differential frameworks for local bodies. Legal challenge will follow.

  4. Improved Rule-making & Transparency
    Given the jurisprudence, institutions will have to craft recruitment/admission rules with clarity: provisions on migration from reserved to general seats, carry-forward of unfilled seats, normalisation of multiple exams, etc. Transparent rule-making, publication of data and audits will become more significant.

  5. Capacity Building & Affirmative Support
    Reservation alone may not suffice. Governments and educational institutions will likely invest more in affirmatively supporting reserved category candidates through preparatory programmes, training, mentoring, bridging courses.

  6. Litigation Surge
    With newer models being attempted (higher quotas, sub-classification, EWS plus horizontal quotas, etc.), litigation will continue, especially in the Supreme Court and high courts. States will need to ensure that classification schemes are backed by justification and evidence to survive judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion

Reservation policy in India remains one of the most dynamic, contested and evolving areas of constitutional law. The recent judgments discussed reflect a mature shift: from rigid formulas to more nuanced, socially-grounded, merit-aware frameworks. The core ethos remains: remedying historical exclusion, promoting broadly inclusive representation, while balancing the constitutional guarantees of equality and efficiency.

For policymakers, practitioners and institutions the message is clear: legal permissibility is necessary but not sufficient. Effective implementation demands: empirical data; clear rules; administrative capacity; monitoring; and continual reassessment in light of social realities.

For society at large, the evolving jurisprudence shows that affirmative action is not a static quota; it is a living instrument that must adapt — whether through sub-classification of reserved categories, migration from reserved to general seats, or inclusion of economically weaker sections. The hope is that as policy becomes more finely targeted and merit-sensitive, the benefits of reservation reach those most in need, while fairness and transparency enhance legitimacy.

In sum: the next decade will likely see further refinement in reservation law and practice — better calibrated, more data-driven, and more integrated with broader social policy. The courts will continue to play a crucial role in supervising the balance between social justice and constitutional equality.


Note: This blog is a summary and analysis based on public-domain judgments and commentary. It is not legal advice.

Comments

Post a Comment