The Great Reservation System in India: Key Amendments & Case Laws Explained

8 Oct 2022  Read 54598 Views

Think about this for a second. India became independent in 1947, but not everyone started that journey from the same starting line. Some communities had faced centuries of exclusion; no access to schools, temples, land, or even basic dignity. When the Constitution was being written, this wasn’t some hidden secret. Everyone in that room knew that equality on paper wouldn’t fix inequality on the ground.

That’s where the idea of reservation came in. It wasn’t created to favour one group over another. It was meant to lift people who had been pushed down for generations and give them a fair chance to compete.

Over the years, this system has sparked debates, protests, amendments, and major Supreme Court rulings. To understand why reservation exists and how it has evolved, let’s walk through the history, the laws, and the cases that shaped it.


Why Was the Reservation System Introduced?

  • To make amends for historical wrongs committed against India’s lower classes

  • To guarantee that individuals from all castes are equally represented in the state- and federally-funded programs

  • To provide everyone with a level playing field regardless of caste

  • To uplift and improve the underprivileged groups


Understanding Reservation as Affirmative Action

In India, reservations are a form of affirmative action that works to give a predetermined number of seats in social and educational institutions to various underrepresented communities. It is made in response to the discrimination by members of upper castes in India. As a result, when India won independence, the Constitution included a clause requiring a certain community to have a certain level of representation in various sectors. 

Affirmative action is a policy designed to actively help groups that have faced discrimination or long-term disadvantage get fair access to opportunities.

That is why seats in education, government jobs, and politics are set aside for:

  • Scheduled Castes (SC)

  • Scheduled Tribes (ST)

  • Other Backward Classes (OBC)

  • Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)

Note- In politics, no reservation for OBCs and EWS

How Reservation Evolved Before and After Independence

Reservation was a known concept in India for a very long period. Let’s know the history of reservations in India.

  • Reservation was there at the time when the Britishers ruled India.

  • It is generally thought of as who decides on a reservation in India. Originally, William Hunter and Jyotirao Phule in 1882 conceived the idea of a caste-based reservation system. When the Hunter Commission was established in 1882, Mahatma Jyotirao Phule urged that all citizens have free, mandatory education and government employment.

  • In 1902, a notification established 50% of service reservations for economically disadvantaged people in the state of Kolhapur. This was India's first notification establishing a reservation for the benefit of the country's underprivileged. Reservation was instituted in 1908 in support of the castes and communities that participated in the administration under British rule.

  • A Government Order issued by the Madras Presidency in 1921 created one of the most detailed communal reservation systems. Allocated 44% of reservations to non-Brahmins, 16% to Muslims, 16% to Anglo-Indian Christians, and 8% to Scheduled Castes.

  • British-era laws like the, Morley-Minto Reforms, also known as the Government of India Act of 1909, the Government of India Act of 1919, the Government of India Act 1935, included provisions for the reservation (basically began formalising group representation).

  • Our Indian Constitution took effect on January 26, 1950.

  • Following independence, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and the Constituent Assembly didn’t see reservation as charity. They saw it as a corrective mechanism backed by constitutional guarantees. 

Reservation under the Indian Constitution

With the enactment of the Indian Constitution, special provisions were enacted as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 46 for the advancement of backward classes. 

"Equality may be a fiction, but nonetheless one must accept it as a governing principle"- Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

Article 14 highlights the concept of equality before the law and equal protection of laws. The first is considered negative in nature because it denies special privileges in favour of an individual, whereas the concept of equal protection of laws states that individuals at equal levels should be treated equally. 

Article 15(4) provides a special provision for advancing any socially and educationally backward class of citizens or for the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes. In order to ensure proper representation of marginalized groups like SCs, STs, and OBCs in educational institutions, public jobs, and the legislature, the state can use this to create special policies. 

Article 16(4) allows the government to create reservations in appointments and posts for any backward class of citizens that the state deems inadequately represented in government services. 

Article 46 allows promotion of educational and economic interests of the SCs, STs and other weaker sections.

List of Constitutional Amendments Related to Reservation in India

India’s reservation policy has evolved through several constitutional amendments. Each amendment responded to a specific social need, court judgment, or gap in the law. Here’s a complete, easy-to-understand breakdown of the major amendments.

Amendment Why it happened What the amendment did Impact
1st Constitutional Amendment, 1951 The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) struck down community-based seat reservations in educational institutions. The Court said Article 15(1) did not allow special treatment on the basis of caste, religion, or community.
  • Added Article 15(4)

  • Allowed the State to create special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, and STs.

  • This amendment legally protected reservations in education after the Dorairajan case.

It became the backbone of reservation in educational institutions for SCs, STs, and backward classes.
77th Constitutional Amendment, 1995 The Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney (1992) held that reservation in promotions is not allowed under Article 16(4).
  • Added Article 16(4A)

  • Allowed reservation in promotions for SCs and STs in government jobs.

This restored promotional reservation for SCs and STs that had been stopped after the Mandal judgment.
81st Constitutional Amendment, 2000 The Court’s earlier interpretation limited how many unfilled SC/ST vacancies could be carried forward.
  • Inserted Article 16(4B)

  • Allowed the carry-forward rule for unfilled SC/ST vacancies without counting them toward the 50% limit in a particular year.

If SC/ST seats remained unfilled, they could be moved to the next year, ensuring representation without violating the 50% cap.
85th Constitutional Amendment, 2001 Disputes arose about whether SC/ST employees who got promotions through reservation would also get consequential seniority.
  • Amended Article 16(4A)

  • Introduced the concept of “consequential seniority”
    (Meaning: when promoted under reservation, the employee also keeps seniority benefits from that promotion.)

Protected the seniority and service progression of SC/ST employees benefiting from promotional reservations.

Challenge to the 77th, 81st & 85th Amendments

Case: M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2007)
Outcome: All amendments were upheld.

However, the Court said the State must show 3 things before granting promotion reservations: a. Backwardness of the class, b. Inadequate representation, c. No harm to administrative efficiency

93rd Constitutional Amendment, 2005

After T.M.A. Pai and other judgments, doubts emerged about whether reservation could be applied in private educational institutions.

  • Inserted Article 15(5)

  • Allowed reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private unaided educational institutions, except minority-run institutions.

Strengthened access to higher education for marginalised groups beyond government institutions.
103rd Constitutional Amendment, 2019 Demand grew to support economically weaker individuals who didn’t fall under existing caste-based categories.
  • Introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)

  • Added Articles 15(6) and 16(6)

For the first time, economic disadvantage became a standalone basis for reservation.

Challenged in: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)
Outcome: Upheld by a 3:2 majority.

106th Constitutional Amendment, 2023 This is popularly referred to as the Women’s Reservation Act (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam).

Introduced 1/3 reservation for women in:

  • Lok Sabha

  • State Legislative Assemblies

  • Delhi Legislative Assembly

Aimed at increasing women’s representation in legislative bodies, which has historically been very low.

Reservation Percentage in India

The reality of reservation in India - Reservation to the SCs, STs and OBCs in case of direct recruitment on an India basis by open competition is given at the rate of 15%, 7.5% and 27%, respectively. EWS category holds 10% reservation.

The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) judgment led to the addition of this subsection (4) by the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951. Specifically, the Madras Government has reserved places in State engineering and medical institutes for various communities based on classes, religion, and race. This was challenged before the court as it violates Article 15 (1) of the Constitution. The state defended the law because it was created to advance social fairness for all community members, as required by the DPSP's Article 46. The SC held that the statute invalidates seat reservations based on race, religion, and caste (caste reservation in India) since it categorized students based on their castes, religions, and other factors rather than their academic ability. Clause (4) was inserted into Article 15 to mitigate the impact of the aforementioned SC judgment. This Article gives the STATE the authority to make specific provisions for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and for socially and educationally marginalized classes of citizens. Article 15(4) is merely an enabling clause; the state is not required to take any special action by it. If necessary, the state may make a reservation.

For making a reservation under clause (4) of Article 15, two elements are to be determined

1) Who are the socially and educationally backward classes? 

2) What is the limit of reservation?

The First Backwards Classes Commission was established in 1953 by the President of India per Article 340 of the constitution and was presided over by Kaka Kalelkar. The panel may recommend actions that the federal and state governments should take to ease the struggles of the socially and educationally underprivileged. 

On March 30, 1955, the Kaka Kalelkar Commission turned in its final report. It had compiled a list of some of the commission's recommendations, which were as follows:

  • Keeping a caste-based population count in the census of 1961.

  • Treating all women as a class and reserving 70% of places in all professional institutions for members of underprivileged groups.

  • Reserving OBC candidates for open positions in all local government positions and agencies

The commission's recommendation was not accepted by the chairman, Mr Kaka Kalelkar, because the report contained ambiguities. He opposed the commission's proposal in a letter to the president. However, the Central Government did not accept the Commission's report since it did not meet the requirements.

In M.R. Balaji v. the State of Mysore (1962), an order was issued by the Mysore government under Article 15(4), reserving the seats in the medical and engineering colleges of the state as follows-

  1. Backwards and More backward classes, 50%

  2. Scheduled castes 15%, and 

  3. Scheduled tribes 3%. 

“Thus, a total of 68% of seats were reserved. The validity of this order was challenged by the candidates who didn’t get admission. The court held that the sub-classification made by order between backward and more backward was not justified under Article 15 (4). It was also held that the ‘caste’ should not be the only basis for determining backwardness. ‘Backwardness’ must be social and educational, not social or educational.”

In 1979, the Janata Party Government declared a second backward classes commission, popularly known as the Mandal Commission, with its chairman Mr B.P. Mandal. The Commission adopted the following criteria for identifying the socially and educationally backward classes:

1. Social criteria, 

2. Educational criteria, and 

3. Economic criteria. 

The commission submitted its report in December 1980. It stated that the OBC population was around 52% of the total population of India, including Hindus and non-Hindus. The commission recommended a 27% reservation for the OBC. Long after the Mandal report was submitted, nothing was done in response to it. The commission primarily associated castes with underprivileged classes and largely disregarded the economic test.

Following the release of the Backward Class Commission's report, the SC was once more presented with the Vasant Kumar case (1985) when it came to classifying the backward classes. The SC judges unanimously decided that "caste" should not be the only factor in determining backwardness.

The Supreme Court made a key ruling in Indira Sawhney v. UOI (1992), also known as the Mandal Commission case, regarding the issue of post-reservation for members of the underprivileged classes. The V.P. Singh government accepted the Mandal Commission's recommendation at the centre in 1990 and announced 27% reservation for socially and educationally disadvantaged sections for open positions in civil service and other government of India jobs. The memorandum was challenged before the SC and the nine judges took it into consideration. The main positive facet of the SC can be highlighted here- 

1. Overall, reservation is limited to a maximum of 50% in a year. 

2. The creamy layer should be excluded from the backward class.

Article 16 (4) provides for the reservation of appointments and posts in favour of any backward class of citizens who, in the opinion of the state, are not adequately represented in the services under the state.

Article 16(4) is applied only when the following conditions are fulfilled:

  1. The class of citizens is backward

  2. The said class is not adequately represented in the services of the state.

In Devadasan v. UOI (1964), the SC considered the application of Article 16(4). In this case, the constitutional validity of the government's "carry forward rule", meant to control the hiring of members of underprivileged groups to public employment, was at stake. According to this rule, the open positions would be filled by fresh candidates who were available if there weren't enough candidates who belonged to the SC/ST group to fill the reserved quota. However, a corresponding number of posts would be reserved for SC/ST in the following year in addition to their reserved quota for that year. 

The "carry forward rule" was declared illegal by the court. However, the SC reversed the Devadasan case in the Mandal Commission case and stated that the "carry forward rule" is lawful as long as it does not exceed 50% of vacancies in a given year. The SC rendered the following ruling in this matter. 

a) The creamy layer needs to be removed from the lower classes,

b) Classification of backward groups into backward and more backward is permitted, unlike in the Balaji case.

c) Reservations cannot be made more than 50%

d) No reservation in Promotion

The government passed the Constitution 77th Amendment Act, 1995, to negate the "no reservation in promotion" point, and as a result, a new clause (4A) was added to Article 16.

Important Articles of the Constitution concerning the Reserved Category

  • Article 15 (5) By the 93rd amendment,2006, the provision of Reservation for Backward, SC, and ST classes in private educational institutions has been added.

  • Article 16 (4B) The constitutional 81st Amendment Act of 2000 included Article 16 (4 B), which allows the state to fill the unfilled SC/ST-reserved vacancies of a year in the following year, erasing the requirement of a minimum of 50% reservation on the total number of vacancies of that year.

  • Article 39 A – Under Directive Principles of State Policy – States must ensure justice and free legal aid to Economically Backward Classes.

  • Article 341 gives the power to the President to notify which castes in the nation and specific states are to be considered Scheduled Castes.

  • Article 342 gives the power to the President to notify which castes in the nation and specific states are to be considered as Scheduled Tribes 

  • Article 342 A gives the power to the President to notify which castes in the nation and specific states are to be considered Backward Classes 

  • Article 338, 338 A, and 338 B mandate the creation of a National Commission for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward classes

  • Articles 330 and 332 provide for specific reservation of SCs and STs in the Parliament and in the State Legislative Assembly 

  • Article 243D provides for the reservation of seats in the panchayat for SCs and STs

  • Article 233T provides for the reservation of seats in every municipality for SCs and STs

  • Article 335 states that to maintain the administration's effectiveness, the demands of SCs and STs must be taken into account.

  • The Constitution's Fifth Schedule specifies the rules for managing Scheduled areas. In states with Scheduled Tribes but without Scheduled Areas, it guarantees the creation of Tribes Advisory Councils with three-fourths representation from the local tribes.

  • The legislature introduced the new reservation in the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2019. This amendment created a 10% reservation for the EWS or economically weaker sections of the society. It gives EWS preference for employment in the public sector and admittance to both public and private educational institutions.

Timeline of Landmark Judgments on Reservation

Case Name 

Significance

Consequence

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951

Reservation held to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 29(2) of the Constitution

1st Constitutional Amendment Act (1951) introduced, inserting Article 15(4) which invalidated the judgment.

MR Balaji v. State of Mysore 1963

Reservations must be “reasonable”

Laid the foundation for the 50% cap, later firmly affirmed in Indra Sawhney (1992)

T Devadasan v. UOI, 1964

The "carry forward rule" was unconstitutional

50% rule seemed to have become an accepted constitutional principle.

State of Kerala v. NM Thomas, 1976

Held that Article 16(1)'s conception of equality itself includes remedial action to ensure due representation for hitherto excluded classes.

1st strong judicial endorsement of reservation philosophy, broadening the constitutional basis for affirmative action.

Indra Sawhney v. UOI, 1992 

Reservations should be fair and within reasonable limits, and the 50% cap should not be exceeded

The case was pressed again in 1999, and the Supreme Court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs & STs.

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996

Introduced the 'catch-up' rule

Later, partially diluted by the 85th Constitutional Amendments.

EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004

Sub-classification among SCs not permitted

Prevented States from creating quotas within SC quotas; this position changed only in Davinder Singh (2024).

P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, 2005

Reservations cannot be enforced on private educational institutions which do not receive government funding.

Led to the 93rd Constitutional Amendment inserting Article 15(5).

M Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2007

Amendments to Article 16 of the Constitution were upheld (Reservation in Promotion to SCs/STs)

Imposed the triple test: backwardness, inadequate representation, administrative efficiency.

I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRS v State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors, 2007

Held that a law will not have absolute immunity if it enters the 9th Schedule after April 24, 1973

Tamil Nadu reservations were put under the 9th Schedule, which had already been upheld by the court.

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI, 2008

The 93rd Constitutional Amendment was upheld

Recommended periodic review of backward classes every 10 years.

Ram Singh & Ors v UOI, 2014

Struck down the inclusion of Jats in the Central list of OBCS

NCBC recommendations are binding on the govt unless there are compelling reasons to deviate.

Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. UOI, 2021

Maratha reservation struck down as unconstitutional

Reaffirmed the 50% ceiling; limited State power after the 102nd Amendment.

Janhit Abhiyan v. UOI, 2022

Upheld the 103rd Amendment, which introduced 10% EWS reservation.

Created a new reservation category not based on caste

State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024

Upheld the constitutional validity of sub-classification within SCs

Allowed States to create internal SC categories based on data.

Conclusion 

The reservation policy in India was designed as affirmative action to uplift marginalised groups, ensuring their inclusion in society. As we navigate the future, it is essential to strike a balance between social justice and maintaining a level playing field to ensure a fair and inclusive society without compromising effectiveness and merit.

About the Author: Gurpreet Kaur Dutta | 82 Post(s)

A legal content writer who pursued BBA-LL.B.(H) from Amity University Chhattisgarh. She has a keen interest in corporate and IPR sectors. 

Liked What You Just Read? Share this Post:

Finology Blog / Legal / The Great Reservation System in India: Key Amendments & Case Laws Explained

Wanna Share your Views on this? Comment here: