The original intent of the reservation policy in newly independent India was to level the playing field for the most marginalised sections, those stigmatised and discriminated against on account of their birth into specific caste and tribal groups. While these groups were also economically deprived, that was not the main rationale for instituting compensatory discrimination in favour of these groups.


How it has fared over time?

  • Over the decades, the instrument of reservation has expanded to include more groups under its ambit, leading to furious debates both about the general principle of affirmative action and about which groups deserve to be beneficiaries.
  • These disputes have resulted in complex legal cases, with the rulings providing the nuts-and-bolts mechanics that guide the implementation of the reservation policy on the ground.


Types of reservation in India

  • The reservation system in India takes two forms: vertical reservation (VR), which until 2019 was defined for stigmatised and marginalised social groups (SCs, STs and OBCs); and horizontal reservation (HR), applicable to cross-cutting categories such as women, people with disability (PWD), domicile, etc.
  • As long as the VR system was social group-based, no individual was eligible for multiple VR categories, since no individual can belong to multiple caste or tribal groups.


What is the EWS reservation?

  • The 103rd Constitution Amendment Act in 2019, popularly known as the 10% quota for the so-called EWS, fundamentally altered the original raison d’être of reservations by opening VR to groups that are not defined in terms of hereditary social group identity (caste or tribe).
  • EWS status is transient (that individuals can fall into or escape out of), but social groups are permanent markers of identity.
  • While this meant that in principle, an individual could belong to two VR categories (say, SC and EWS), the amendment explicitly removed individuals who are already eligible for one VR (SC, ST, or OBC) from the scope of EWS reservations. As a result of this exclusion, an individual could still be only eligible for at most one vertical category.


Challenge in the courts

  • Exclusion of SCs, STs, OBCs from the scope of EWS reservation was immediately challenged in court on the grounds that it violated individual right to equality (that roughly corresponds to Articles 14-18 of the Indian Constitution).
  • On the last day of hearings at the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, the following “compromise” proposal was made by G. Mohan Gopal: do not revoke the amendment but interpret the language of the amendment in a way that does not exclude SCs, STs, OBCs from the scope of EWS reservation.


Why is it unfair?

  • Allowing for overlapping VR categories (such as SC and EWS, etc.) generates an important ambiguity under the current legal framework, most notably stemming from the ruling of the Indra Sawhney case ( 1992).
  • Under this, any member of a reserved category who is entitled to an open-category position based on “merit” (examination) score should be awarded an open-category position, and not be slotted under a VR position.
  • Technically, this implies that open-category positions must be allocated based on merit in the first step, and VR positions should be allocated to eligible individuals in the second step.


What is the question to be addressed?

What if the current income limit of the EWS category is changed (lowered)? That would change the calculus somewhat since poorer individuals from all social groups (including non-SC-ST-OBC) would be eligible. In this scenario, the richer (above the presumed new income cut-off) SC-ST-OBC individuals will be eligible only for the social group-based VR positions. However, changing income limits is likely to open a whole new Pandora’s box, especially in the absence of reliable income data. Realistically, shifting the income cut-off for EWS seems unlikely.



Therefore, the court would be well-advised to consider the implications of the implementation routes and to make sure there are no ambiguities, i.e., no loopholes. Given the enormity of the unemployment situation, as well as the importance of addressing social cleavages, the urgency of working out an optimal implementation strategy cannot be overstated.


SourceThe Hindu


QUESTION – What is the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Bill? Why it has been challenged in the court of law as being violative of fundamental rights of citizens and social equality?