1.1 Introduction

Systematized discrimination against castes and classes that are socially and economically backward is apparent from a study of India’s history and a scrutiny of the fabric of Indian society. Reservation has been identified as a measure of rightful reparation that also serves as a measure to enhance access to education, employment and therefore, the standard of living of these classes. Equal opportunity is sought to be guaranteed which thus, aids in achieving the ideal of substantive equality which eschewing mere formal equality.

Reservation adopts the colour of an affirmative action that fundamentally seeks to ensure social equality or equivalency. Social equality is a concept that is not limited to economic equality. Social equality does encompass equal legal rights, such as that of security, the ability to vote, the right to free speech and assembly and property rights but more importantly, it aims to ensure that all citizens possess access to basic resources such as education, employment, health care etc, without any sort of ingrained stigma that cripples them.

The Indian judiciary has delivered certain crucial rulings on reservation. Some of its rulings have been met with disagreement by the legislature, who has chosen to overturn it through Constitutional amendments. An overview of the important judgments given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is fundamental in understanding the concept of reservation, legality and its contours.

1.2 State of Madras V. Champakam Dorairajan

Reservation of seats in state medical and engineering colleges was done by the Government of Tamil Nadu based on religion, race, caste etc. This was challenged in Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras where it was argued that the same was unconstitutional. The Government called up Article 46 of the Indian Constitution which allows the State to encourage the interests of backward sections of society, with special reference to scheduled castes and women to defend the policy.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the order was invalid because it was antithetical to the principle of equality protected by Art.15 of the Constitution which is a fundamental right. Directive Principle of State Policy, the Court held that it could not supersede fundamental rights. This led to the addition of Article 15 (4) of the Indian Constitution. The Indian judiciary and mainly the Supreme Court is mainly committed to ensure complete justice, which would encompass social justice. While reviewing legislations that aim to ensure socio-economic justice and safe-guard vulnerable groups, the ideal of social justice ought to serve as a guiding factor.

Through judgments such as “E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India”, the Supreme Court questioned the traditional notions of equality based on the principle of reasonable classification. The Court held that equality is a dynamic concept which could not be confined and limited. Reservation to ensure representation to backward classes who are not adequately represented in the services has also been discussed by the Supreme Court. The judgments in the cases of N Nagarajan, Ashok Kumar Thakur, and Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India & others dealt with this issue. However, the Supreme Court has said that reservations should not be increased beyond 50% except in certain exceptional circumstances, with adequate data justifying the same.

The general rule stated through Art.16 (1) and Art. 16 (2) of the Constitution contains exceptions in Art.16 (4). The said provision empowers the State to reserve posts in public services for backward classes. Inadequate representation and backwardness are the twin criteria that need to be satisfied. There has been a certain tussle between the Parliament and the judiciary with respect to various reservation policies.

1.3 Balaji V. State of Mysore

M.R Balaji and Ors. vs State Of Mysore was one such judgment wherein the Court held that backwardness must be both social and educational ; not social alone or educational alone. There cannot be an iota of doubt about the fact that determination of backwardness is an arduous task. However, according to the Court, Article 15(4) does not contemplate such determination on the basis of caste alone. Thus, the impugned reservation order was struck down as invalid.

The impugned order had also sub-classified backward classes further which according to the Court would exceed the extent of Article 15(4).

In this case, all caste in the category of backward minority classes whose average student population per thousand was marginally higher, marginally lower, or quite near to the State average were included which concluded in ninety percent of the total population of state being fitted into the category of backward minority classes. The court ruled that the same was not justifiable and was contrary to the principle laid down in Article 15(4). It held that only those classes that fall far behind the average would be considered as backward.

According to the Court reserving 68% of the seats in engineering and medical colleges which are in the nature of technical institutions are antithetical to constitutional principles. The court opined that though reservations are a necessity to uplift the downtrodden, the same could not be done at the cost of a blatant denial of admission of candidates who have the necessary qualification and merit to study in higher educational institutions. The Court held that to deny admission to students who are higher in competency and qualification in institutions of higher education is detrimental to national interest. This was why the Court fixed an upper limit of fifty percentages which could not be exceeded in any case. This was considered as a reasonable limit to provide for reservations under Article 15(4) & Article 16(4).

The court established the following guidelines in its ruling:-

• According to Article 16(4), backwardness of a class cannot be determined by economic standards alone; instead, it is the backwardness of the caste that needs to be taken into account.
• Article 16(4) is an example of classification as envisaged by Article 16 (1) and must not be demonstrated as an exception to clause 1.
• The socially and educationally minority and backward classes indicated in Article 15 is different from the backward minority classes imaged in Article 16 (4). The conception of a “creamy layer” was established, and it was necessary that classes falling under this category must be excluded from the benefit of reservation.
• The division of minority classes or backward classes into backward and more backward classes is permitted by Article 16 (4).
• There cannot be any reservation in promotions. Reservation must not exceed 50% of the total number of seats.

M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, though overruled with regard to certain propositions by subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court, resulted in one of the most remarkable discussions about reservation.

The court’s ruling somewhat emphasized the necessity of striking a balance between social justice and individual justice. The Court opined that the interests of the weaker sections of the society must be safeguarded. However, there must not be any unreasonable concessions that are made. This would disrupt the ideal of social equality which is the ultimate goal that the country needs to strive towards. It also held that national interest would take a back-seat if due consideration was not given to merit.

The Court tried to fix some sort of criteria to gauge the reasonableness of a reservation. It disagreed with the current existing practice of using of caste as the solitary basis of such determination. It was categorical in its holding that reservations could not, under any circumstances surpass 50%, as it would then be vitiated by unreasonableness. The quantum of reservation would depend upon the factual circumstances.

It was held that reservation as a concept was not unreasonable and must be assessed with due regard to job prospects in public services. This judgment was cited with approval and followed in “General Manager, Southern Railway vs Rangachari, State of Punjab vs Hiralal, Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) vs Union of India.” Additionally, it was also decided that Reservation contemplated Article 16 (4) also included promotions. But this was overruled in “Indira Sawhney & Ors. vs Union of India” which ruled that there cannot be any reservation in the matter of promotion.

In Indra Sawhney case, the court held that:

• As specified in Article 16 (4), the caste system can be used to identify members of the backward minority class, as opposed to focusing solely on their financial situation.
• Article 16 (1) is not excluded under Article 16 (4) of the Indian Constitution. It only gets rid of the social grouping. Reservations may be made for any portion, save those specified in Article 16 (4), pursuant to Article 16 (1).
• People who belong to the Creamy layer shouldn’t be considered members of the underprivileged minority classes and are not entitled to the privileges that are available to them.
• The number of reserved classes in society will not exceed half.
• Additionally, there won’t be any exception for promotions.
• An executive order may alter the reservation procedure.
• There will be a judicial body to handle complaints, disputes and issues.
• According to the majority, there isn’t sufficient evidence to form a conclusion about the Mandal Commission’s work’s accuracy or suitability.

After the case of Indra Sawhney:

Following the Indra Sawhney case, the reservation has experienced numerous changes. In 1995, the Parliament amended the Constitution by adding clause [4A] to Article 16 in response, giving the State the power to reserve seats for SC & ST in promotions in the public services if communities are not sufficiently represented in public employment. In the case of “M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India” 2006, the Supreme Court maintained the constitutional validity of Article 16 (4A) and established following three conditions:

• SC and ST have to be intellectually and socially backward.
• SC and ST are insufficiently represented in government jobs.
• It won’t have an impact on the administration’s overall effectiveness.

A number of state governments implemented legislation in reaction to the 77th Amendment to the Constitution. One such law was the “Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation” passed by the State of Karnataka (to the posts in the State’s Civil Services), and the Supreme Court affirmed its validity in the year 2019.

In the case of B.K. Pavitra, the ”Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted” on the basis of the Reservation Act, 2002 was declared unconstitutional because the state had not committed to evaluating “inadequacy of representation,” “backwardness,” and the impact on overall effectiveness prior to the legislation’s enactment.

In the case of Indra Sawhney, the court endeavoured to reach a justifiable conclusion that achieves a nuanced equilibrium between the rights of the impoverished classes and society. The exclusion of the creamy layer, who had already benefited sufficiently from affirmative action, as well as the removal of economic criteria as the only factor in classification, was both positive steps. The court’s decision may have been considerate, but later several changes were made to the reservation criteria by different administrations further proved that politics had completely taken over reservation and that it was currently more about vote banking than anything else.

The next case is Devadason vs Union of India, in which the constitutional legitimacy of the government’s carry forward rule to regulate the employment of individuals from backward minority class in government services were at stake. This rule states that if the required quota reserved for backward class is not filled in a particular year due to a shortage of eligible candidates from the quota, those empty seats will be treated as unreserved and filled by eligible candidates from the general category, and the corresponding number of posts will be reserved for Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes in addition to their reserved quota in the following year. As a result, the average annual reservation for each group remains unchanged. As a result of this regulation, 68% of the available positions were allocated for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Following that, the Supreme Court, by a vote of to, upheld the carry forward rule.

Following that, in the Mandal Commission case – the Supreme Court reversed the decision of case Devadasan vs Union of India, and ruled that the carry forward rule is valid provided that it does not go beyond fifty percent of the vacancies in a given year. This 50% restriction can only be exceeded if an extreme scenario exists in a state. This court’s ruling, in this case, established a viable and fair answer to the reservation problem, specifically stating that there shall be no reservation in promotions in government posts.

The 81st Amendment Act of 2000 of Constitution inserted a fresh section (4B) in Article 16 that intends to abolish the 50% ceiling on reservation for SC/ST and OBCs in backlog positions that could not be filled the previous year owing a lack of qualified applicants. The vacancies that could not be filled in the subsequent previous year will be classified as a separate class of vacancies and will be filled in any upcoming year; they will not be considered in conjunction with the vacancies of the years, even if they exceed the 50% limit. The passage of this amendment would irritate the most deserving members of society. The Constitution 85th Amendment Act of 2001 amended Article 16 (4A) to grant consequential seniority along with promotion. This amendment seeks to expand the benefit of reservation in favor of SCs/STs in matters of promotion and seniority. In this regard, a key decision is case of M. Nagaraj vs Union of India, in which it was determined that the Constitution Amendments by which Articles (4A) and (4B) were included did not affect the core structure of Article 16 (4).

Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution gives authority the state to make special provisions for educationally and socially backward minority classes.

It still does not mandate the State to make provisions for the progress of the forenamed classes. In this context, the 93rd Constitution Amendment Act of 2006 added Clause 5 to Article 15 – Provision for

Reservation of Backward classes, S.C. and S.T. Classes, including Private Education Institutions. This Amendment nullifies the impact of two Supreme Court decisions in the cases namely “T.M Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka and Islamic Academy vs State of Karnataka”.

Other important case laws in this point of view are:-

• State of Kerala v. N M Thomas – The Supreme Court supported caste based reservation in this case. The Supreme Court further held that the Constitution’s goal is to eradicate caste from governmental operations. However, certain inferior castes must be identified and categorised for compensating measures before caste may be abolished. In this decision, it was determined that the Balaji and Devadasan cases were correctly resolved and established valid principles regarding quota for SCs and STs in government services. Reservation during the first stage is less detrimental than reservation during the promotion stage. It causes a lot of enmity among those who are refused promotions, affecting administrative efficiency.
• State of Madras vs Champakaam Dorairajaan – The Supreme Court held that the Madras government’s communal government decree determining the proportion of students from each community who might be admitted to state educational institutions was unconstitutional under Article 29. (2). The Supreme Court also ruled that the Madras Government’s order for the reservation of seats in the State Medical and Engineering Colleges for different communities are unconstitutional because they were enacted with the objective of ensuring social justice as enshrined in Art.46 of the Constitution. The Fundamental Rights cannot be superseded by a Directive Principle of State Policy.
• Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India – A five-judge Supreme Court panel ruled that the Constitution 93rd Amendment Act of 2006, which provides 27 percent quota in admission to OBC candidates in higher educational institutions, is constitutional. Every five years, this reservation must be reconsidered.
• K.S.Jayashree Vs. State of Kerala – It was held herein that consideration of caste of a specified group is relevant while gauging backwardness; however, caste cannot be the solitary criterion.
• Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchaari Sangh Vs Union of India – A society that does not discriminate on the basis of caste, the Court opined, must not be through removing of labels alone but through reservation that empowers people.
• Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – The Supreme Court ruled that there is a fundamental right to free education for every child until the age of fourteen. Subsequently, provision of free education would be subject to the capacity of the concerned Government. Art.21, the Court held, must be interpreted in consonance with Art.41, 45 and 46.
• Jarnail Singh vs Lachmi Narayan Gupta – The court ruled that Nagraj case verdict does not require to be referred to a seven-Judge panel.

Furthermore, the mandate that the State provide quantitative proof of the Scheduled Tribes’ and Scheduled Castes’ backwardness conflicts with the nine-judge bench’s decision in the Indra Sawhney case, making it illegal. The Indra Sawhney Case further demonstrated that any talk of the “creamy layer” is irrelevant when discussing Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Nagraj judgement’s applicability of the “creamy layer” to promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes members was also affirmed by the Supreme Court. It had led to the denial of promotions to thousands of workers. The court viewed the creamy layer theory as an identity theory as opposed to an equality theory.

In B.K. Pavitraa Vs Union of India, according to the court, the enactment complied with the principles set forth in the Constitution Bench decisions in Jarnaail, which established that the creamy layer concept applied to OBCs but barred SCs and STs. In discrepancy, the reservations in the present case were only for SCs and STs and did not include OBCs.

The court ruled that the reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been provided until the representation for these categories reaches 15% and 3%, respectively, and that the above said Government Order is applicable to departments with an excessive number of SC and ST. The court also decided that because the departments are administratively managed by one or the other, they fall under the act’s purview even if they were not mentioned in the RPC report.

1.4 Conclusion

The fundamental objective of the reservation policy is to address the issue of socio-economic inequality. Therefore, the most significant acknowledged objective of the Indian reservation system is to improve the social and educational status of poor populations, allowing them to take their equitable place in Indian society.

This quota scheme has numerous drawbacks, but history has demonstrated that it is politically impossible for Parliament to say no to reservation, especially when caste is involved, according to Hon’ble Justice Bhandari. The judge discussed the dangers of continuing to use caste-based quotas.
So, while the reserve may be a method to create equality, it can also result in inequality if not handled effectively. Reservations are now a political necessity because large important parts of the voting crowd regard reservations as favourable to themselves.

All governments have strongly supported the retention and expansion of reserves. Reservations are legally and contractually obligatory. As demonstrated by the Gujjar agitations in Rajasthan between the years 2007-2008, strengthening reservations is also critical for maintaining peace in India. Our politicians have repeatedly defended the logic, and the public has accepted that reservations are the only approach to combat prejudice. But is there a clear relationship between this policy’s provisions and the ultimate objective of equality?

In this regard, the judiciary interprets the reserve clause objectively and fairly from time to time. The Supreme Court also proposes that the government clarify which services should not be reserved due to the highly technical nature of the employment. Thus, rather of punishing the others, the fundamental motivation behind making reservations was to help the backwards. If the overuse of reservation authority contradicts the fundamental goals of the Constitution, it distorts its ideals.

Author Name- Abhay Dubey, pursuing B.B.A L.L.B(hons) 

Link to other related articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/marital-rape/

Link to the Supreme Court’s website: https://www.sci.gov.in