| Introduction | jurisprudence |
| Provisions explanation | article 15 and 16 of constitution |
| Case laws | Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477 M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1 Dr. Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477 |
| Conclusion | present problem |
WHAT IS RESERVATION?
Reservation is a system in India where a certain percentage of seats or positions are set aside (reserved) in education, government jobs, and legislatures for specific groups of people who have historically faced social and educational disadvantages. In simple words, reservation means keeping some opportunities aside for specific groups so that they get fair chances in areas like jobs, education, or politics.
Reservation in employment under Article 16 of the Indian Constitution refers to the affirmative action policy that provides preferential treatment in public employment to certain underrepresented and disadvantaged communities. It is a measure to ensure equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment.
WHY IS IT NECESSARY?
- Equality: it ensures that all citizens get equality in education, employment, and uplift those who were denied access for centuries.
- Reduce Discrimination: it reduces discrimination caused by caste or economic conditions.
- Help to SCs & STs: To help Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
WHERE THESE RESERVATIONS APPLIED?
- Government Jobs
- Public Educational Institutions
- Political Bodies (like Parliament and State Assemblies)
- Promotion in Government Services.
ARTICLE 16 : Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State,
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an officeunder the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of State are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent, reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.
(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.
(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category.
Article 16 clause (1) & (2) guarantees equality in employment opportunities but clauses, (3) to (6) are the exception to the rule of equality. The “equality of opportunity” under 16(1) means equality between members of same class of employees and not equality between members of separate independent classes. Under article 16, the guarantee against discrimination is limited to “employment and appointment” under the state.
Opportunities:
This article talks about two opportunities:
1. Equality of Opportunity
2. Substantive Equality of Opportunity
Equality of opportunity: Article 16 makes sure that everyone gets a fair chance to get a government job, no matter what background they come from. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are meant to help people from socially backward groups. If these groups are divided further (like within OBCs, SCs, or STs), it should be based on how socially backward they are. The idea of equal opportunity here means giving fair representation, but with these two special conditions.
Substantive Equality of Opportunity: Substantive equality means going a step further than just treating everyone equally — it understands that some people need extra support because of past disadvantages and social inequality.
This idea is explained in Article 16, especially in Clauses 4, 4A, and 4B of the Constitution of India.
While Article 16 allows the state to set necessary qualifications and selection processes for appointments, these must be non-arbitrary and relevant to the job’s nature. The principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” is also encompassed within the equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16(1). Furthermore, Clause (4) explicitly empowers the state to reserve appointments for any backward class deemed inadequately represented in state services, and this definition of “backward class” under Article 16(4) includes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Thus, Article 16(4) applies under satisfaction of 2 conditions:-
- Backward classes of Citizens
- Inadequate Representation.
Article 16(4) is not an Exception to clause (1):
Article 16(4) is an enabling provision. Reservation for a backward class not a mandate. It has been held to be prerogative of the state. It confers a discretionary power on the state to make reservation of appointments in favour of backward classes of citizens not adequately represented in the services of the state either numerically or quantitatively.
Clause (4) does not cover the entire field covered by clauses (1)&(2) of article 16. Under clause(1), reservations can be made for physically handicapped, army personnel, freedom fighters etc. Thus, reservations being on considerations other than that of backwardness. Article 16(4) is only available to backward class of citizens. It must be remembered that backward classes are not only Hindus but include Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jain etc. State cannot reserve all or even a majority of appointment for backward classes.
CASE LAWS:
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
Facts: In 1979, Prime Minister Morarji Desai, from the Janata Party, appointed the Mandal Commission under Article 340 of the Indian Constitution. The commission was headed by B.P. Mandal and tasked with identifying and classifying socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in India. The commission submitted its final report in 1980, which recommended a reservation system allocating 27% of government job positions for SEBCs. However, progress on this matter was slow for several years until the Janata Dal regained power in 1989. The government then decided to implement the commission’s recommendations, reserving 27% of seats for socially backward classes. This implementation of the reservation policy sparked protests, with upper-caste groups arguing that it would result in reverse discrimination. Consequently, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by petitioner Indira Sawhney in the Supreme Court, challenging this reservation system.
Issue: Whether Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is an exception to Article 16(1), and whether it exhaustively defines the rights of reservation?
Does Article 16(4) allow classification of ‘Backward Classes’ into Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes or permit classification among them based on economic or other considerations?
Judgement: The court observed that the classification of backward classes under Article 16(4) is not solely based on economic criteria; it also considers the caste system. Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1), but rather an example of classification. The backward classes referred to in Article 16(4) are distinct from those categorized as socially and educationally backward in Article 15(4). Additionally, the court upheld the 50% limit on vertical reservation, as stated in the case of M.R. Balaji vs. State of Mysore. The court emphasized that this 50% restriction applies unless there are exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the court noted that Part III of the Constitution was established to eliminate historical injustices and inequalities, whether inherited or deliberately created. The court also clarified that there is no reservation in promotions.
The Supreme Court upheld the government order, stating that caste is an acceptable indicator of backwardness. Consequently, the recommendation for reservations for OBCs in central government services was implemented in 1992.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India
Facts: The government enacted the 77th amendment to the Constitution, which included the insertion of Article 16(4A). This amendment empowers states to implement reservations for the promotion of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in government services.
Subsequently, the 81st constitutional amendment introduced Article 16(4B), simplifying the process for filling vacant reserved positions from previous years. It eliminated the 50% cap on the number of these carry-forward jobs that could be filled in a single year.
The 82nd constitutional amendment added Article 335, which stipulates that all reservations for SCs and STs must align with the efficiency of administration. Although the Constitution emphasizes the need for efficient administration, this amendment allows the government to offer reserved jobs or promotions even if candidates from these groups do not meet the standard requirements.
The 85th amendment addressed how seniority is managed for promotions granted through reservation, ensuring that those promoted via these provisions retain their seniority in their new positions.
As a result, a petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 challenging these amendments concerning reservations in promotions for SCs and STs in government services.
Issue: Whether the amendments challenged by the petitioner are constitutionally valid or not?
Whether the impugned constitutional amendments violate the principle of basic structure?
Judgement: The court referred the case, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477 and said that this ruling adversely affected the interest of SC/STs as they did not reach the required level in services, so it is necessary to make such amendments by inserting clause 4A in article 16. The court upheld the constitutional validity of impugned amendments.
The 85th Amendment just clarified something already in the Constitution (Article 16, Clause 4A). Because of this, and because it builds on a previous change (the 77th Amendment), both the 77th and 85th Amendments are valid.
The court said that if states want to use reservations, they have to collect data to prove it’s necessary. This data needs to show they’re following the rules, like the 50% limit, excluding the “creamy layer” (wealthier members of reserved groups), and not making reservations permanent.
By the 82 amendments, article 335 was added to allow the government to give special treatment to Scheduled Castes and Tribes in job promotions. This was done because it was thought that regular reservation rules (Article 16(4)) didn’t allow for this kind of relaxation. Since this new rule only applies to SCs and STs, it fits with other rules about reservations (like Article 16(4A)) and is therefore valid.
The court gave the two tests, i.e., the “width test” and “identity test” to determine whether the basic structure was violated. The “width test” looks at a constitutional change in the broadest possible way to see if it breaks any other part of the Constitution. The “identity test” checks if the change messes with the overall core principles or character of the Constitution.
The court also gave the concept of “catch-up rule”, it said that the candidate who is from a reserved category gets promoted earlier than his senior general candidates in the feeder grade and he shall be junior to the senior general candidates in the promoted category.
SC upheld the constitutional amendments enabling reservation in promotions for SCs and STs while reiterating the substantive constitutional limits and safeguards on the exercise of this power by the States.
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
Facts: Parliament enacted the 93rd amendment, leading to the passage of the Central Educational Institutions Act, 2006. Section 3 of this Act stipulates reservations of 15% for Scheduled Castes (SC), 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes (ST), and 27% for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in educational institutions. These reservations are intended to provide equal opportunities for access to higher education and to promote social justice.
A petitioner filed a challenge against the amendment and the Act, arguing that admissions to educational institutions should be based solely on merit. The petitioner contended that it is unfair for the government to admit a less qualified student over a more qualified one solely due to reservations.
Issue: Whether the 93rd Constitutional Amendment is valid or not?
Whether Creamy layer be excluded from SEBCs?
Whether Article 15(5) is constitutionally valid?
Whether the delegation power to determine of backward class is constitutionally valid?
Whether article 15(5) is violating article 14?
Judgement: The Court determined that the 93rd Amendment would be unconstitutional if the “creamy layer” (the wealthier members of a reserved group) is not excluded from its benefits. It stated that the government must define who constitutes the “creamy layer,” as there are currently no clear guidelines on this matter. This exclusion applies specifically to Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
While the Court found that applying reservations to private, unaided institutions infringes on citizens’ right to practice a profession (under Article 19(1)(g)), which violates the basic structure of the Constitution, it upheld the 93rd Amendment’s application to government-run and aided schools. Minority educational institutions, which fall under a distinct category with separate constitutional protections, were deemed not unconstitutional.
Finally, the Court clarified that Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 15 (prohibition of discrimination) operate independently and do not contradict one another, making both provisions constitutionally valid.
The court held that the 93rd amendment is valid and as far as creamy layer is concerned it talks about OBCs and not for the SC/STs.
Dr. Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana
Facts: The Haryana government directed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU) Rohtak to conduct entrance exams for medical and dental postgraduate courses in government colleges for the 2008-2009 academic year. Admission for these courses was to be managed by Pt. B.D. Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS).
Following this directive, MDU released a prospectus for the courses. The appellants, after unsuccessfully urging the state to implement SC/ST reservations in accordance with previous guidelines, challenged the prospectus in court. However, their case was rejected by the court. They are now appealing this decision before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Is it possible to file a writ suit before the Supreme Court of India to direct the state government involved to execute the SC/ST reservation as per Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution?
Can the court impose a minimum qualifying mark for candidates in the reserved category, particularly for post-graduate medical education?
Judgement: Regarding the first argument, the Supreme Court reiterated its established interpretation of Article 15(4), emphasizing that states have the discretion to provide reservations and are in the best position to determine whether they are necessary for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
The Court confirmed that Article 15(4) is permissive rather than mandatory and that implementing reservations at the undergraduate level does not automatically necessitate them at the postgraduate level. Consequently, the Court upheld Haryana’s decision not to implement reservations and ruled that this decision cannot be challenged through a writ of mandamus.
Additionally, the Court suggested that the state may revisit this decision in the future. Secondly, regarding the minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Court, referencing the Preeti Srivastava case, stressed that the difference in qualifying marks between the general category and the reserved category should not be unreasonable. Such a disparity could be viewed as arbitrary, and the Medical Council of India should intervene because mark allocation is linked to professional certification.
The Court specifically criticized the thresholds of 45% for the general category and 20% for the reserved categories as inconsistent, unjustified, and contrary to the public interest.
Because Article 15(4) gives states the option but not the obligation to implement reservations in education, the Court cannot order a state government to do so. Therefore, the Court rejected the petition.
