RESERVATION IN INDIA: ADDRESSING CASTE INEQUITIES OR CREATING NEW DIVIDES

Abstract

India’s reservation system, which was established by the constitution to elevate underprivileged castes, faces scrutiny for maintaining injustices, especially for the general population. This article critiques rising caste-based quotas, emphasising how wealthy recipients—particularly the creamy layer—take advantage of them and how this disadvantages deserving general category applicants in the workplace and in school. It raises concerns about the continued use of reservations in postgraduate exams and the significant quota disparities in spite of equalising educational opportunities. The article makes the case that unbridled growth poses a risk of social disintegration and the erosion of merit, and suggests reforms such as economic criteria and enforcement of the creamy layer. In order to strike a balance between social justice and fairness, it concludes that reservations must be recalculated to give priority to actual socioeconomic disadvantage. It also exhorts policymakers to reconsider quotas in order to avoid widening gaps in India’s changing society.

Introduction

In August 2024, the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh reaffirmed states’ authority to sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) for equitable reservation benefits, reigniting debates over India’s affirmative action policies. Rooted in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, the reservation system aims to rectify historical caste-based injustices by reserving seats in education, employment, and legislatures for SCs, Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). However, the system’s expansion—evidenced by Bihar’s 75% quota hike in 2023—has sparked concerns about fairness, particularly for general category candidates facing stringent merit thresholds. By disadvantageously affecting the general category and sustaining caste identities, this article critically investigates whether reservations—which were meant to address caste disparities—are actually creating new divisions. It makes the case for immediate reforms, such as economic criteria and the enforcement of the creamy layer, to guarantee fair access without sacrificing merit.

Legal Framework

With Articles 15(4) and 16(4) enabling states to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, and STs in public employment and education, India’s reservation system is firmly rooted in the Constitution. The state is also required by Article 46 to advance the economic and educational interests of marginalised groups. The British “Communal Award” of 1933, which established distinct electorates for marginalised groups, served as the model for the system that was formalised after independence. In order to increase the overall reservations in central institutions to 49.5%, the Mandal Commission (1980) suggested a 27% quota for OBCs and 22.5% for SCs and STs. Beyond the 50% cap proposed in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963), the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019) increased the quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) by 10%.

The creamy layer concept, first proposed in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), sought to keep wealthy members of the backward class out of reservations despite constitutional protections, but its uneven implementation across states compromises equity. Concerns about permanent caste-based policies are heightened by the fact that reservations do not have a sunset clause, in contrast to the original 10-year limit for legislative quotas under Article 334. Even though this framework is legally sound, it finds it difficult to strike a balance between meritocracy and affirmative action, especially as quotas increase.

Judicial Interpretation

The discourse surrounding reservations has been influenced by seminal rulings. After the Supreme Court overturned caste-based quotas in medical and engineering schools in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), Article 15(4) was added to the First Constitutional Amendment. Citing equality principles, the Court set a 50% reservation cap in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963), a threshold that states like Tamil Nadu (69%) and Bihar (75%), routinely exceed. 

In order to guarantee that benefits reach the genuinely disadvantaged, the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case established the creamy layer exclusion while maintaining the 27% OBC quota. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999) restored the Court’s partially overturned position in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (1997) that reservations should not apply to promotions. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020, reaffirmed 2024) addressed intra-caste disparities but complicated quota frameworks by permitting sub-classification within SCs. Affirmative action is upheld by courts, but they struggle to limit quota expansion and guarantee merit-based fairness, especially in postgraduate education where general category candidates face disproportionately high cut-offs despite equal qualifications. These rulings highlight judicial tension.

Critical Analysis

The flaws in the reservation system are obvious. First, the creamy layer exclusion—which aims to restrict benefits to underprivileged people—is applied unevenly. For instance, affluent OBC and SC candidates often secure reserved seats, sidelining poorer candidates within their own communities and general category aspirants. Second, the continued use of reservations in postgraduate exams like the NEET-PG calls into question their necessity. At this point, candidates have similar access to education, but students in the general category are subject to cutoffs that are much higher than those in the reserved categories, which breeds animosity. For instance, despite having comparable academic preparation, general category cut-offs in NEET-PG 2023 were about 30% higher than SC/ST thresholds.

Disparities are made worse by the large quota gap, which in states like Bihar can reach 75%. This disparity and the fact that most caste-based quotas lack economic criteria enable wealthy recipients to take advantage of the system, undermining its social justice objectives. In contrast, nations such as the United States phase out racial quotas in higher education following Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) and employ affirmative action with more stringent, need-based standards. In stark contrast, India’s strict caste-based system upholds caste identities rather than promoting a casteless society. Because even dominant castes like the Jats and Patels demand backward status, the system’s reliance on caste over socioeconomic metrics runs the risk of deepening divisions.

Recent Developments

The system’s controversial evolution is highlighted by recent policy changes. Bihar raised its reservation quota to 75% in November 2023, with 10% going to EWS, 20% going to SCs, 2% to STs, 25% to EBCs, and 18% to OBCs. Based on a caste survey conducted in 2022, this decision was criticised for going over the 50% cap and failing to take into account exclusions For the creamy layer. The public’s response has been divided, especially among young people in the general category, with demonstrations focussing on the lack of jobs and the erosion of merit.

Addressing intra-caste disparities is the goal of the Supreme Court’s 2024 Davinder Singh ruling, which permits SC sub-classification but runs the risk of further fracturing quota policies. Meanwhile, states like Haryana and Andhra Pradesh have faced legal setbacks; Haryana’s 75% private-sector job reservation for locals was quashed in 2023 as unconstitutional. As students and job seekers protest systemic bias, media reports like those in The Indian Express highlight the growing general category frustration. These developments signal an urgent need for reform to prevent social unrest and ensure equitable implementation.

Suggestions

The following changes are suggested in order to address these issues: 

1. Boost Enforcement of the Creamy Layer: Apply the same creamy layer requirements to all reserved categories, with the exception of wealthy recipients. It is worthwhile to revive the Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission’s (1997) recommendation to exclude creamy layer SCs from reservations.
2. Include Economic Considerations: Target truly disadvantaged people from all castes by shifting reservations towards socioeconomic metrics, as recommended by ClearIAS (2025). Caste-based quotas could be replaced with a 25% quota for economically disadvantaged people (those with annual incomes under ₹1 lakh).
3. Phase Out Postgraduate Quotas: Reduce the number of reservations in postgraduate programs where there are few academic differences. Equity and excellence would be balanced in a merit-based system that provides financial aid to underprivileged students.
4. Periodic Review Mechanism: Drishti IAS (2025) recommends the creation of a national commission to examine reservation policies every ten years in order to evaluate their necessity and impact.
5. Public Knowledge and Conversation: In order to lessen caste-based polarisation, civil society and the media should promote conversations about social justice and meritocracy. While the legislature must implement time-bound reforms, the judiciary can provide clarification on reservation limits.

For reservations to benefit the underprivileged without alienating the general population and promote social cohesion, political will and judicial supervision are necessary.

Conclusion

Although India’s reservation system is an essential instrument for resolving caste disparities, it runs the risk of escalating tensions by unfairly burdening candidates from general categories and sustaining caste identities. The need for reform is underscored by the unbridled growth of quotas, their extension to postgraduate education, and their exploitation by the creamy layer. India can strike a balance between social justice and meritocracy by phasing out quotas in higher education, implementing economic criteria, and enforcing creamy layer exclusions. The legislature’s duty to pass time-bound laws and the judiciary’s role in defining boundaries are crucial. Reservations could exacerbate social divisions and jeopardise India’s goal of a just society if they are not changed. Is it possible for India to rethink affirmative action in order to promote unity and help the genuinely underprivileged?

Bibliography

• Constitution of India, arts. 15(4), 16(4), 46, 334.
• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCC 351.
• M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 439.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217.
• R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745.
• Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538.
• Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 3471.
• State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2020) 8 SCC 65.
• E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394.
• Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
• Saxena, K.B., Report on the Implementation of Reservation Policy, National Commission for Backward Classes (2004).
• Deshpande, A. & Yadav, Y., Affirmative Action in India: Policy Design and Social Outcomes, 41 ECON. & POL. WKLY. 2419 (2006).
• Reservation in India, WIKIPEDIA,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India (Accessed: July 23, 2025).
• Reservation in India, DRISHTI IAS, https://www.drishtiias.com (Accessed: July 23, 2025).
• Supreme Court Allows Sub-Categorisation in Scheduled Caste Reservation, INDIAN EXPRESS, https://indianexpress.com (Accessed: July 23, 2025).
• Reservation in India – Explained in Layman’s Terms, CLEARIAS, https://www.clearias.com (Accessed: July 23, 2025).
• Intra-Group Caste Reservation in India, DRISHTI IAS, https://www.drishtiias.com (Accessed: July 23, 2025).