Notes: Reservation Policy & FRs in India | Political Science & International Relations: Mains Optional - UPSC PDF Download

 Page 2


                                            
• Affirmative action, or reservations as we understand in India, is an idea that is deeply 
contested. It addresses questions of justice about disadvantages that persons of 
certain groups face. 
• According Ashok Acharya, affirmative action may be defined as ‘a formal effort to 
provide increased employment and educational opportunities for underrepresented 
and disadvantaged groups at a level sufficient to overcome past patterns of 
discrimination and present structural inequalities.’ 
• As a policy it seeks to ensure inclusion of disadvantaged groups that were hitherto 
excluded from full participation in citizenship. Reservation is regarded as the 
strongest form of affirmative action. Alongside land distribution and judicial 
independence, reservation policies have seen a huge tussle between the judiciary 
and legislature. 
• The colonial policy of ensuring representation rights to different communities is a 
crude precursor to affirmative action policies in post-Independence India. 
• Andre Beteille writes how the colonial policy differed from the Constitutional 
scheme in post-independence India. Two principles round the colonial policy of 
equal representation in political offices and jobs that led to communal or 
representational quotas: 
a) the policy of balance between competing communities, or interests; 
b) the policy to divide the nationalist front by creating differences. 
• The constitutional scheme of preferences, on the contrary, was based on the policy 
of social justice. Broadly, three types of preferences are sanctioned by the 
Constitution. 
a) First are reservations—in the sense used here they denote a broader category 
than affirmative action—which cover special representation rights of SCs and STs 
by way of reserved seats in Parliament and state legislatures as per Articles 330, 
332, and 334. The Seventy-third Amendment to the Constitution also provides 
for reservations in local representative bodies such as panchayats and 
municipalities for SCs, STs, women, and OBC. 
b) quotas educational institutions as per Article 15(4), and now (5) in case of 
education. Article 15(4) permits ‘special provision’ for SCs, STs, and ‘socially and 
educationally backward classes’. Clause 4 of Article 15 was inserted as part of the 
First Amendment to the Indian Constitution in 1951 in response to the 
Champakam Dorairanjan case. 
c) Reservation in public employment is provided by the Constitution under Articles 
Page 3


                                            
• Affirmative action, or reservations as we understand in India, is an idea that is deeply 
contested. It addresses questions of justice about disadvantages that persons of 
certain groups face. 
• According Ashok Acharya, affirmative action may be defined as ‘a formal effort to 
provide increased employment and educational opportunities for underrepresented 
and disadvantaged groups at a level sufficient to overcome past patterns of 
discrimination and present structural inequalities.’ 
• As a policy it seeks to ensure inclusion of disadvantaged groups that were hitherto 
excluded from full participation in citizenship. Reservation is regarded as the 
strongest form of affirmative action. Alongside land distribution and judicial 
independence, reservation policies have seen a huge tussle between the judiciary 
and legislature. 
• The colonial policy of ensuring representation rights to different communities is a 
crude precursor to affirmative action policies in post-Independence India. 
• Andre Beteille writes how the colonial policy differed from the Constitutional 
scheme in post-independence India. Two principles round the colonial policy of 
equal representation in political offices and jobs that led to communal or 
representational quotas: 
a) the policy of balance between competing communities, or interests; 
b) the policy to divide the nationalist front by creating differences. 
• The constitutional scheme of preferences, on the contrary, was based on the policy 
of social justice. Broadly, three types of preferences are sanctioned by the 
Constitution. 
a) First are reservations—in the sense used here they denote a broader category 
than affirmative action—which cover special representation rights of SCs and STs 
by way of reserved seats in Parliament and state legislatures as per Articles 330, 
332, and 334. The Seventy-third Amendment to the Constitution also provides 
for reservations in local representative bodies such as panchayats and 
municipalities for SCs, STs, women, and OBC. 
b) quotas educational institutions as per Article 15(4), and now (5) in case of 
education. Article 15(4) permits ‘special provision’ for SCs, STs, and ‘socially and 
educationally backward classes’. Clause 4 of Article 15 was inserted as part of the 
First Amendment to the Indian Constitution in 1951 in response to the 
Champakam Dorairanjan case. 
c) Reservation in public employment is provided by the Constitution under Articles 
16(4) for SCs, STs, and ‘Backward Classes’, and 335 for only SCs and STs. 
d) Article 15 (3) has been interpreted by the courts to permit reservations for 
women in employment. 73rd and 74th amendment acts also provide reservation 
for women in local bodies. Moves to introduce 33% reservation for women in 
Parliament however, continue to face hurdles. 
e) 103rd amendment act adds the new clause (6) to Articles 15 and 16 allows 10% 
reservations in educational institutes as well as in appointments or posts under 
the state for economically weaker section. 
f) The RTE Act 2002 enshrined as a right under Article 21 (A) also provides for 
reservation for EWS. 
• While reservation beneficiaries have been defined by the government—and 
permitted by the courts— to be solely on the basis of caste, reservations based solely 
on religion have faced judicial resistance. 
• Reservations already extend to some members of non-Hindu religions. For instance, 
several State governments classify some Muslim sub-groups as ‘backward castes’ 
and as such eligible for reservations—the argument being that caste hierarchies 
extend beyond Hinduism to other religions in India. 
• However, as the Sachar commission Muslims— as a whole—are under-represented 
in government services, and have worse socio-economic indices compared to even 
Scheduled Castes and Tribes. 
• The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in National Legal Services 
Authority case in which it recognised the rights of transgender people in India and 
laid down a series of measures for securing transgender people's rights by 
mandating the prohibition of discrimination, recommending the creation of welfare 
policies, and reservations for transgender people in educational institutions and 
jobs. However, the 2019 Act does not provide for reservations. There has been a 
demand for reservation in education, employment and legislatures. 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 4


                                            
• Affirmative action, or reservations as we understand in India, is an idea that is deeply 
contested. It addresses questions of justice about disadvantages that persons of 
certain groups face. 
• According Ashok Acharya, affirmative action may be defined as ‘a formal effort to 
provide increased employment and educational opportunities for underrepresented 
and disadvantaged groups at a level sufficient to overcome past patterns of 
discrimination and present structural inequalities.’ 
• As a policy it seeks to ensure inclusion of disadvantaged groups that were hitherto 
excluded from full participation in citizenship. Reservation is regarded as the 
strongest form of affirmative action. Alongside land distribution and judicial 
independence, reservation policies have seen a huge tussle between the judiciary 
and legislature. 
• The colonial policy of ensuring representation rights to different communities is a 
crude precursor to affirmative action policies in post-Independence India. 
• Andre Beteille writes how the colonial policy differed from the Constitutional 
scheme in post-independence India. Two principles round the colonial policy of 
equal representation in political offices and jobs that led to communal or 
representational quotas: 
a) the policy of balance between competing communities, or interests; 
b) the policy to divide the nationalist front by creating differences. 
• The constitutional scheme of preferences, on the contrary, was based on the policy 
of social justice. Broadly, three types of preferences are sanctioned by the 
Constitution. 
a) First are reservations—in the sense used here they denote a broader category 
than affirmative action—which cover special representation rights of SCs and STs 
by way of reserved seats in Parliament and state legislatures as per Articles 330, 
332, and 334. The Seventy-third Amendment to the Constitution also provides 
for reservations in local representative bodies such as panchayats and 
municipalities for SCs, STs, women, and OBC. 
b) quotas educational institutions as per Article 15(4), and now (5) in case of 
education. Article 15(4) permits ‘special provision’ for SCs, STs, and ‘socially and 
educationally backward classes’. Clause 4 of Article 15 was inserted as part of the 
First Amendment to the Indian Constitution in 1951 in response to the 
Champakam Dorairanjan case. 
c) Reservation in public employment is provided by the Constitution under Articles 
16(4) for SCs, STs, and ‘Backward Classes’, and 335 for only SCs and STs. 
d) Article 15 (3) has been interpreted by the courts to permit reservations for 
women in employment. 73rd and 74th amendment acts also provide reservation 
for women in local bodies. Moves to introduce 33% reservation for women in 
Parliament however, continue to face hurdles. 
e) 103rd amendment act adds the new clause (6) to Articles 15 and 16 allows 10% 
reservations in educational institutes as well as in appointments or posts under 
the state for economically weaker section. 
f) The RTE Act 2002 enshrined as a right under Article 21 (A) also provides for 
reservation for EWS. 
• While reservation beneficiaries have been defined by the government—and 
permitted by the courts— to be solely on the basis of caste, reservations based solely 
on religion have faced judicial resistance. 
• Reservations already extend to some members of non-Hindu religions. For instance, 
several State governments classify some Muslim sub-groups as ‘backward castes’ 
and as such eligible for reservations—the argument being that caste hierarchies 
extend beyond Hinduism to other religions in India. 
• However, as the Sachar commission Muslims— as a whole—are under-represented 
in government services, and have worse socio-economic indices compared to even 
Scheduled Castes and Tribes. 
• The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in National Legal Services 
Authority case in which it recognised the rights of transgender people in India and 
laid down a series of measures for securing transgender people's rights by 
mandating the prohibition of discrimination, recommending the creation of welfare 
policies, and reservations for transgender people in educational institutions and 
jobs. However, the 2019 Act does not provide for reservations. There has been a 
demand for reservation in education, employment and legislatures. 
 
 
 
 
 
• The Indian Constitution recognises three main beneficiary groups of reservation 
policy: Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and a third group termed 
‘Other’ Backward Classes (OBCs). 
• Vijay Sitapati argues that controversy is regarding the third category that is of Other 
Backward Classes. Unlike SCs and STs, OBCs are not a distinct social group. 
• Some of these castes are numerically large and control agricultural land, and are 
thus politically dominant, but they are under-represented in higher education and 
the professions. 
• The Mandal commission report recommended 27% reservation quota for OBC. Its 
implementation by V.P. Singh government led to widespread protests. 
• The debate regarding the quantum of debate led to the Indira Sawhney case. The 
court upheld separate reservation for OBC in central government jobs, but excluded 
these to the "creamy layer" (the forward section of a backward class, above a certain 
income). It further ruled that at no point should the reservation exceed 50%. 
• Satapati underlines the centrality of caste in defining a group as backward. In the 
Balaji vs State of Mysore case (1963), the court decided that while caste is relevant, 
it can’t be the sole factor. 
• The legal situation today is that the Union and State Governments have defined 
‘backward class’ solely in terms of caste. 
• The Constitution does not mandate this, but the question to the Court has always 
been whether the Constitution enables this. As the majority judgment in Indra 
Sawhney put it, ‘a caste can be and often is a social class in India’. 
• However, the three-judge minority in Indira Sawhney argued that economic criteria 
alone should be the measure of backwardness. This came into practice with the 
103rd amendment. 
• In the 2007 Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India verdict the Court recommended 
a review after ten years to take note of the change of circumstances. In the NALSA 
judgment, the Supreme Court had taken judicial notice of the fact that the 
transgender community was underrepresented in government employment, and 
on that basis, had specifically directed affirmative action measures under Article 16. 
• It follows from this that if indeed it has been found that a group falls within the scope 
of Article 16(4), the demands of substantive equality under Article 16(1) require the 
State to take measures to bring about real and effective parity. 
• A final debate is data on OBCs: the actual state of backwardness of these castes, and 
Page 5


                                            
• Affirmative action, or reservations as we understand in India, is an idea that is deeply 
contested. It addresses questions of justice about disadvantages that persons of 
certain groups face. 
• According Ashok Acharya, affirmative action may be defined as ‘a formal effort to 
provide increased employment and educational opportunities for underrepresented 
and disadvantaged groups at a level sufficient to overcome past patterns of 
discrimination and present structural inequalities.’ 
• As a policy it seeks to ensure inclusion of disadvantaged groups that were hitherto 
excluded from full participation in citizenship. Reservation is regarded as the 
strongest form of affirmative action. Alongside land distribution and judicial 
independence, reservation policies have seen a huge tussle between the judiciary 
and legislature. 
• The colonial policy of ensuring representation rights to different communities is a 
crude precursor to affirmative action policies in post-Independence India. 
• Andre Beteille writes how the colonial policy differed from the Constitutional 
scheme in post-independence India. Two principles round the colonial policy of 
equal representation in political offices and jobs that led to communal or 
representational quotas: 
a) the policy of balance between competing communities, or interests; 
b) the policy to divide the nationalist front by creating differences. 
• The constitutional scheme of preferences, on the contrary, was based on the policy 
of social justice. Broadly, three types of preferences are sanctioned by the 
Constitution. 
a) First are reservations—in the sense used here they denote a broader category 
than affirmative action—which cover special representation rights of SCs and STs 
by way of reserved seats in Parliament and state legislatures as per Articles 330, 
332, and 334. The Seventy-third Amendment to the Constitution also provides 
for reservations in local representative bodies such as panchayats and 
municipalities for SCs, STs, women, and OBC. 
b) quotas educational institutions as per Article 15(4), and now (5) in case of 
education. Article 15(4) permits ‘special provision’ for SCs, STs, and ‘socially and 
educationally backward classes’. Clause 4 of Article 15 was inserted as part of the 
First Amendment to the Indian Constitution in 1951 in response to the 
Champakam Dorairanjan case. 
c) Reservation in public employment is provided by the Constitution under Articles 
16(4) for SCs, STs, and ‘Backward Classes’, and 335 for only SCs and STs. 
d) Article 15 (3) has been interpreted by the courts to permit reservations for 
women in employment. 73rd and 74th amendment acts also provide reservation 
for women in local bodies. Moves to introduce 33% reservation for women in 
Parliament however, continue to face hurdles. 
e) 103rd amendment act adds the new clause (6) to Articles 15 and 16 allows 10% 
reservations in educational institutes as well as in appointments or posts under 
the state for economically weaker section. 
f) The RTE Act 2002 enshrined as a right under Article 21 (A) also provides for 
reservation for EWS. 
• While reservation beneficiaries have been defined by the government—and 
permitted by the courts— to be solely on the basis of caste, reservations based solely 
on religion have faced judicial resistance. 
• Reservations already extend to some members of non-Hindu religions. For instance, 
several State governments classify some Muslim sub-groups as ‘backward castes’ 
and as such eligible for reservations—the argument being that caste hierarchies 
extend beyond Hinduism to other religions in India. 
• However, as the Sachar commission Muslims— as a whole—are under-represented 
in government services, and have worse socio-economic indices compared to even 
Scheduled Castes and Tribes. 
• The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in National Legal Services 
Authority case in which it recognised the rights of transgender people in India and 
laid down a series of measures for securing transgender people's rights by 
mandating the prohibition of discrimination, recommending the creation of welfare 
policies, and reservations for transgender people in educational institutions and 
jobs. However, the 2019 Act does not provide for reservations. There has been a 
demand for reservation in education, employment and legislatures. 
 
 
 
 
 
• The Indian Constitution recognises three main beneficiary groups of reservation 
policy: Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and a third group termed 
‘Other’ Backward Classes (OBCs). 
• Vijay Sitapati argues that controversy is regarding the third category that is of Other 
Backward Classes. Unlike SCs and STs, OBCs are not a distinct social group. 
• Some of these castes are numerically large and control agricultural land, and are 
thus politically dominant, but they are under-represented in higher education and 
the professions. 
• The Mandal commission report recommended 27% reservation quota for OBC. Its 
implementation by V.P. Singh government led to widespread protests. 
• The debate regarding the quantum of debate led to the Indira Sawhney case. The 
court upheld separate reservation for OBC in central government jobs, but excluded 
these to the "creamy layer" (the forward section of a backward class, above a certain 
income). It further ruled that at no point should the reservation exceed 50%. 
• Satapati underlines the centrality of caste in defining a group as backward. In the 
Balaji vs State of Mysore case (1963), the court decided that while caste is relevant, 
it can’t be the sole factor. 
• The legal situation today is that the Union and State Governments have defined 
‘backward class’ solely in terms of caste. 
• The Constitution does not mandate this, but the question to the Court has always 
been whether the Constitution enables this. As the majority judgment in Indra 
Sawhney put it, ‘a caste can be and often is a social class in India’. 
• However, the three-judge minority in Indira Sawhney argued that economic criteria 
alone should be the measure of backwardness. This came into practice with the 
103rd amendment. 
• In the 2007 Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India verdict the Court recommended 
a review after ten years to take note of the change of circumstances. In the NALSA 
judgment, the Supreme Court had taken judicial notice of the fact that the 
transgender community was underrepresented in government employment, and 
on that basis, had specifically directed affirmative action measures under Article 16. 
• It follows from this that if indeed it has been found that a group falls within the scope 
of Article 16(4), the demands of substantive equality under Article 16(1) require the 
State to take measures to bring about real and effective parity. 
• A final debate is data on OBCs: the actual state of backwardness of these castes, and 
their numerical percentage. The Constitution enables the Central executive to 
appoint a ‘commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes’ under 
article 340. 
• The Court while striking down OBC reservation for Jats asserted that outdated 
statistics (like use of 1931 census by Mandal commission) can’t be used to establish 
backwardness. 
• The Court also emphasised that the government should be alive to new kinds of 
backwardness—such as of transgenders—rather than just focusing on older forms 
of disadvantage. 
• The 2011 Indian census categorised 1,206 castes as SCs and 701 tribes as Scheduled 
Tribes. Together they constitute 25.2 per cent of the population. This wide range of 
groups and individuals means that some are less ‘backward’ than others, whether 
on income, education, land access, representation in the public sphere, or social 
status. 
• This has led to a debate regarding solutions to prevent cornering of benefits by 
certain sections of backward classes. The first technique is to remove castes or tribes 
that have disproportionately benefited from the SC, ST, or OBC lists. 
• The second way is through sub-classification, what is colloquially called ‘quota within 
quotas. This is to ensure that, in the words of the Supreme Court, ‘one or two such 
classes do not eat up the entire quota leaving the other backward classes high and 
dry’. 
• S.S. Jodhka has pointed to instance of providing for sub-quotas by Punjab and 
Andhra Pradesh. However, the Supreme Court has held that neither centre nor state 
governments can sub-classify within the SC/ST list. 
• On the other hand, Supreme Court has allowed sub-classification on the basis of 
‘social backwardness’ in OBCs. The Narendra Modi government constituted a four-
member commission headed by retired Delhi High Court Chief Justice G. Rohini in 
October 2017. 
• The committee’s mandate was to look into the issue of sub categorisation within 
OBCs. The Rohini Commission found that out of almost 6,000 castes and 
communities in the OBCs, only 40 such communities had gotten 50% of reservation 
benefits for admission in central educational institutions and recruitment to the civil 
services. The panel further found that close to 20% of OBC communities did not get 
a quota benefit from 2014 to 2018. 
• Sudha Pai explained that the Mandal Commission recommendations helped the 
economically better positioned OBCs more than the most backward castes.