Minority Issues – SC, ST, Dalits, OBC, Reservations, etc.

No fundamental right to reservation, but State can’t deny it without valid reasoning: SC

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Mains level: Reservation in India; Fundamental Right;

Why in the News?

Recently, the Supreme Court stated that reservation is not a fundamental right. Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution allow the government to provide reservations, but they do not make it mandatory. However, if the government decides not to give reservations, it must have valid reasons and supporting data to justify its decision.

What is the legal status of reservation in India?

Constitutional provisions: 

  • Article 15(4) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
  • Article 16(4) enables the State and Central Governments to reserve seats in government services for SCs and STs.
    • Article 16(4A), introduced via the 77th Constitutional Amendment in 1995, empowers the government to provide reservations in promotions for SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented in public services. This was later modified by the 85th Amendment in 2001 to include consequential seniority.
  • Article 338B gives constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).
  • Article 342A empowers the President to notify the list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) for any state or union territory, which can only be amended by Parliament.
  • Article 46 states that the State shall promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs, and protect them from social injustice and exploitation.

Judicial precedence: 

  • Champakam Dorairajan vs. State of Madras (1951): The Supreme Court ruled against communal reservations, leading to the First Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Article 15(4).
  • Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): The Supreme Court capped caste-based reservations at 50%, ruling that reservations should not destroy the concept of equality. It also mandated the exclusion of the “creamy layer” among Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from reservation benefits and stated that there should not be reservation in promotions.
  • M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) but stated that any reservation policy must ensure the SC/ST community is socially and educationally backward, not adequately represented in public employment, and that such policy shall not affect the overall efficiency in the administration.
  • Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India (2022): The Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from unreserved classes, even if it exceeds the 50% limit on total reservations.

Under what conditions can the state deny or grant reservations?

  • Based on Quantifiable Data: The State must collect quantifiable data to assess the underrepresentation of backward classes before granting reservations. Example: M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) required the government to prove inadequate representation before providing reservations in promotions.
  • No Arbitrary Decisions: Reservations cannot be granted or denied arbitrarily and they must be backed by valid reasoning and legal justification. Example: The Supreme Court ruled in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) that reservation policies should be rational and not violate the right to equality.
  • Transparency in Public Employment: The government must clearly specify reservation details (total posts, reserved/unreserved categories) in job advertisements. If no reservation is provided, it must be justified. Example: The Supreme Court struck down a 2010 recruitment process in Palamu, Jharkhand for failing to mention reservation details, deeming it non-transparent.

How does the Supreme Court balance reservation with equality and fairness?

  • Reservations Are Enabling, Not Mandatory: The Court clarifies that Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions, meaning the State may grant reservations but is not obligated to do so.
  • Ensuring No Arbitrary Decisions: The State must base its decision on quantifiable data regarding underrepresentation. Arbitrary refusal or granting of reservations is unconstitutional.
  • 50% Ceiling on Reservations: As per the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992), reservations should not exceed 50%, ensuring fair opportunities for all, unless exceptional circumstances justify exceeding the limit.
  • Merit and Social Justice Balance: The Court emphasizes that reservation should uplift disadvantaged groups without compromising meritocracy in public employment and education.
  • Judicial Scrutiny to Prevent Abuse: Courts can strike down reservation policies if they are found to be politically motivated, lacking empirical justification, or violating Articles 14 and 16 (equality in public employment).

Way forward: 

  • Data-Driven Reservation Policies: The government should ensure periodic empirical assessment of backwardness and representation to justify reservations, preventing misuse and ensuring targeted benefits.
  • Balancing Merit and Affirmative Action: Strengthen skill development, education, and economic empowerment programs to reduce long-term reliance on reservations while ensuring fair representation in public employment and education.

Mains PYQ:

Q Why are the tribals in India referred to as ‘the Scheduled Tribes’? Indicate the major provisions enshrined in the Constitution of India for their upliftment.  (UPSC IAS/2016)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Join us across Social Media platforms.

💥Mentorship March Batch Launch
💥💥Mentorship March Batch Launch