SHOULD RESERVATIONS EXCEED THE 50%?

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy:  THE HINDU

Why in News?

The debate over the 50% reservation ceiling, established by the Indra Sawhney v/ Union of India judgment, has resurfaced with recent judicial pronouncements and political demands for higher quotas and sub-categorization.  

Evolution of the 50% Ceiling

M.R. Balaji v/ State of Mysore (1962): A five-judge bench ruled that reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) must be “within reasonable limits,” suggesting a cap of less than 50% to balance community interests.

• Emphasized formal equality, viewing reservations as an exception to equality under Article 14, prioritizing merit over affirmative action.

State of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas (1975): A seven-judge bench held that Article 16(4) is an extension of Article 16(1)’s equality of opportunity, not an exception. Justices Fazl Ali and Krishna Iyer questioned the 50% ceiling’s rigidity, arguing that reservations could exceed 50% to ensure “adequate” representation.

• Recognized reservations as a tool to address historical disadvantages rather than a deviation from equality.

Indra Sawhney v/s Union of India (1992): A nine-judge bench upheld 27% OBC reservations but reaffirmed the 50% ceiling, except in “exceptional circumstances” like remote areas. It introduced creamy layer exclusion for OBCs but excluded SC/STs from this concept.

Recent Developments

Maratha Reservation Case (2021): A five-judge bench struck down Maharashtra’s 16% Maratha quota, which exceeded the 50% ceiling, citing no exceptional circumstances.

Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022): Upheld the 10% EWS quota, ruling that the 50% ceiling applies only to backward class reservations, allowing total reservations to reach 59.5% centrally.

Davinder Singh vs State of Punjab (2024): A seven-judge bench suggested applying creamy layer principles to SC/STs, highlighting inequities within reserved categories.

What are the Challenges with the 50% Ceiling?

Demographic Disparity: Backward classes, SCs, and STs form over 66% population, yet reservations are capped at 50%, leading to underrepresentation.

• 2006 NSSO survey: OBCs around 41%
• 2011 Census: SCs (16.6%) and ST (8.6%) of total population

Unfilled Vacancies: 40–50% of reserved seats for SC/ST/OBC remain vacant centrally due to systemic gaps in education and recruitment (Source: Ministry of Personnel, 2024).

Benefit Concentration: Rohini Commission found that 97% of OBC benefits are cornered by 25% of sub-castes, leaving nearly 1,000 communities unrepresented.

Arbitrary Limit: The 50% ceiling fails to account for regional socio-economic variations.

Political Pressures: Demands for higher quotas (e.g., Jharkhand’s 77%) reflect political mobilization but face judicial scrutiny without legal clarity.

Why Reconsider the Ceiling?

Underrepresentation: Only 15.34% (SC), 6.18% (ST), and 17.5% (OBC) of central government jobs are held by these groups, far below their population share (Source: Ministry of Personnel, 2024).

Evolving Social Realities: Demands for a national caste census, planned for 2027, highlight the need for data-driven reservation policies to reflect current demographics.

Regional Variations: States like Tamil Nadu (69%) exceed the 50% ceiling, justified by unique socio-economic conditions, yet face legal challenges.

Arguments For and Against Exceeding the 50% Ceiling

Against Maintaining the 50% Ceiling

Merit and Efficiency: Ensure open competition for at least 50% of seats, preserving administrative efficiency (M. Nagaraj vs Union of India, 2006).  

Constitutional Balance: Aligns with formal equality under Article 14, preventing reservations from overshadowing equal opportunity (Indra Sawhney, 1992).

Social Harmony: Limits caste-based divisions, as seen in Tamil Nadu’s 69% quota, which critics argue deepens social fragmentation.

Judicial Consistency: High Courts (e.g., Bombay) consistently strike down laws exceeding 50%, reinforcing legal predictability.

Against Maintaining the 50% Ceiling

Substantive Equality: The ceiling restricts addressing historical disadvantages, reservations should reflect the extent of underrepresentation.

Regional Needs: States with large backward populations require flexible quotas to ensure adequate representation (Source: Rohini Commission, 2021).

Judicial Flexibility: The Janhit Abhiyan ruling (2022) shows the ceiling is not absolute, as EWS quotas push total reservations to 59.5%.

Structural Inequities: Unfilled vacancies and benefit concentration highlight the need for higher, better-targeted quotas.

Way Forward

Refer to a larger Bench: Supreme Court should revisit Indra Sawhney verdict to resolve the inconsistency between N.M. Thomas and Indra Sawhney. An eleven-judge bench can clarify the balance between formal and substantive equality.

Caste Census Implementation: A national caste census, planned for 2027, can provide practical data to justify reservation limits based on population and representation.

Sub-Categorization: Implement the Rohini Commission’s recommendations to prioritize marginalized sub-castes within OBCs and extend creamy layer principles to SC/STs.

Skill Development: Invest in education and skilling programs to reduce dependence on reservations, addressing the 40–50% vacancy backlog.

Regional Flexibility: Allow states with unique socio-economic conditions (e.g., Northeast, Lakshadweep) to exceed the 50% ceiling with robust justification, subject to judicial review.

Two-Tier System: Prioritize the most marginalized within reserved categories to prevent elite capture, ensuring equitable benefit distribution (Davinder Singh case 2024).

Conclusion

The 50% reservation ceiling, rooted in Indra Sawhney, struggles to address complex socio-economic landscape. By referring the issue to an eleven-judge bench, the Supreme Court can reconcile formal and substantive equality, ensuring reservations serve as a tool for social justice without compromising constitutional principles. 

Source: THE HINDU