Reservation Policies in India
Introduction
Reservation in India is a multifaceted concept, stirring diverse opinions. Is it an anti-poverty measure, a right of access, or something more? This article delves into the complex landscape of reservation policies in India, examining their historical roots, legal dimensions, and contemporary relevance.
Understanding the Constitutional Framework
The foundational pillars of reservation are embedded in Articles 15, 16, 17, and 46 of the Indian Constitution. These articles envision a society free from social injustice, exploitation, and ensure equality for all citizens.
Landmark Judgments: Shaping Reservation Policies
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
This pivotal judgment set aside caste-based reservations in medical and engineering colleges, sparking debates on the nature and scope of reservations.
M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963)
Challenging a 68% reservation, this case highlighted the delicate balance between affirmative action and exceeding reasonable limits.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
A 9-judge bench upheld the 50% ceiling, denied reservations in promotions, and introduced indicators to gauge backwardness, reshaping reservation dynamics.
Mandal Commission and Indicators of Backwardness
The Mandal Commission (1979) identified socially and educationally backward classes, leading to the Indra Sawhney case. The commission’s recommendations faced legal scrutiny, resulting in a nuanced judgment.
Recent Developments: Maratha Quota and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister (2021)
The Supreme Court quashed the Maratha Reservation, emphasizing the need for exceptional circumstances to justify additional quotas.
Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act (2019)
This amendment enabled 10% reservations for economically weaker sections, marking a significant shift in reservation policies.
Challenges and Controversies
Creamy Layer Debate
In Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008), the Supreme Court addressed the creamy layer concept, stating it should be considered for OBCs but not for SCs and STs.
Reservation in Promotion
The intricate balance between reservation in promotions and the 50% limit faced scrutiny in various cases, impacting the professional growth of reserved category individuals.
Recent Judicial Verdicts
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)
The 5-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, ensuring reservations for economically weaker sections.
Conclusion
Reservation policies in India have evolved through landmark judgments and constitutional amendments. While addressing historical injustices, these policies face challenges, prompting courts to strike a delicate balance between social equality and avoiding excessive affirmative action.
FAQs on Recent Judgments on Reservation Policies in India
Q1: What is the recent Supreme Court judgment on reservation?
A1: In 2022, the Supreme Court, in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, providing reservations for Economically Weaker Sections of society.
Q2: Which is the most famous judgment on reservation?
A2: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) is the most well-known judgment, where a 9-judge bench upheld the 50% ceiling, denied reservations in promotions, and established indicators to ascertain backwardness.
Q3: What is the current reservation policy in India?
A3: Reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs in direct recruitment on an all-India basis by open competition is 15%, 7.5%, and 27%, respectively. In promotion by non-selection method, SCs and STs have a reservation of 16.66% and 7.5%, respectively.
