India Debates Reservations And Charts Equitable Future Policy Pathways

Source: The post India debates reservations and charts equitable future policy pathways has been created, based on the article “Should reservations exceed the 50% cap?” published in “The Hindu ” on 4 September 2025. India Debates Reservations And Charts Equitable Future Policy Pathways.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.

Context: Debate sharpened after Tejashwi Yadav promised 85% reservation in Bihar and the Supreme Court sought the Union’s view on a ‘creamy layer’-like system for SC/ST. The article maps law, judgments, distribution issues, and the path ahead.

For detailed information on Issues of reservation in India read this article here

Why has the reservation debate resurfaced now?

1. Political trigger and judicial move: 85% sparked questions on legal limits and fairness. The Court’s notice on a ‘creamy layer’ for SC/ST revived concerns about concentration of benefits and equitable targeting within quotas.
2. Current central reservation matrix: Central quotas are OBC 27%, SC 15%, ST 7.5%, and EWS 10%. The total is 59.5%. States vary based on demographics and policy choices; they frame their own percentages.

What do Articles 15–16 and equality principles imply?

1. Formal and substantive equality: A tension exists. Formal equality treats reservations as exceptions. Substantive equality views them as tools to realise real opportunity for historically disadvantaged groups.
2. Scope for special provisions: Articles 15–16 authorise targeted measures for socially and educationally backward classes and SC/ST. The design must advance opportunity without undermining the broader equality guarantee.
3. Reasonable limits debate: Courts test “reasonable limits” to balance group claims and community interests. How far quotas may extend remains central to current disputes, especially amid proposals above 50%.

How have landmark judgments shaped limits and categories?

1. Balaji (1962) ( the 50% ceiling): The Court said reservations must be within reasonable limits and should not exceed 50%. This reflected a formal equality approach and set a durable benchmark.
2. N.M. Thomas (1975) (substantive equality lens): The Bench framed reservation as part of equality of opportunity. It did not decide the 50% question, but strengthened the substantive equality narrative.
3. Indra Sawhney (1992) (OBCs, cap, creamy layer): A nine-judge Bench upheld 27% OBC quotas, treated caste as a class marker, reaffirmed the 50% cap absent exceptional circumstances, and required creamy layer exclusion for OBCs.
4. Janhit Abhiyan (2022) (validating EWS): The Court upheld 10% EWS, allowed economic criteria, and read the 50% limit as for backward classes. EWS targets a distinct unreserved segment.

Where are benefits concentrated, and what is the ‘creamy layer’ dispute?

1. Ambedkar’s caution and rising demands: B. R. Ambedkar supported reservations but said they should be confined to a minority. Demands now seek exceeding 50%, backed by calls for a caste census to anchor policy.
2. Vacancies and representation gaps: Government replies show 40–50% of reserved Central posts remain unfilled. This signals implementation gaps and weakens the promise of meaningful representation.
3. Concentration within OBCs: The Rohini Commission estimated that about 97% of reserved jobs and seats are taken by around 25% of OBC groups. Nearly 1,000 of ~2,600 OBC communities show zero representation at the Central level. This indicates that benefits cluster among a relatively small set of sub-castes.
4. SC/ST ‘creamy layer’ contestation: Concentration concerns exist for SC/ST too, but no creamy layer applies. In Davinder Singh (2024), four judges urged policy on exclusion. The Union Cabinet (Aug 2024) reaffirmed non-applicability.

What could balance equality and inclusion going forward?

1. Calibrating levels using data: 85% may offend equality of opportunity. Yet affirmative action is vital. The 2027 Census (with backward caste enumeration) should guide stakeholder deliberations on suitable levels.
2. Targeting benefits better: Implement OBC sub-categorisation per Rohini using Census data. For SC/ST, consider a two-tier design that prioritises the most marginalised before extending to relatively better-off sections.
3. Managing risks and backlogs: Opponents fear creamy layer rules could increase backlogs and risk conversion of vacancies to unreserved seats. Reforms must prevent these outcomes while widening access.
4. Beyond quotas: Public sector jobs are limited. Reservations alone cannot meet aspirations. Strong skill development is essential to secure gainful employment for a young workforce.

Question for practice:

Discuss how constitutional provisions, judicial rulings, and distributional concerns shape the current debate on reservations in India.