Reservation in promotions for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) employees in government jobs has been a significant point of contention in India. The Centre recently informed the Supreme Court that nullifying such reservations could result in employee unrest and a surge in litigations. This follows the court’s prior refusal to lay down the “yardstick” for assessing the inadequacy of representation, which acts as a guideline for granting reservations for SC/ST candidates in government employment.
The Pros and Cons of Reservation
Reservation offers numerous advantages, including ensuring diversity in higher education and the workplace along with protection from discrimination. It aids the emancipation of underprivileged individuals and promotes equality. Furthermore, it dispels stereotypes concerning caste, religion, and ethnicity while enhancing social mobility. Reservation is vital to compensate for centuries of oppression and discrimination and provides level-playing fields by addressing ‘graded inequalities’.
However, certain concerns are associated with reservation, primarily erosion of meritocracy and perpetuation of stereotypes. Instead of acknowledging individuals’ capabilities and efforts, their success is often attributed to reservation. There are also concerns regarding reservation serving as a medium for reverse discrimination.
Important Related Judgments
Several landmark judgments have shaped the landscape of reservation in public employment in India, such as the Mukesh Kumar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2020; Indra Sawhney Judgment (1992); M Nagaraj Case 2006; Jarnail Singh Case 2018; and Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs Chief Minister (2021), among others.
The evolution of constitutional provisions, such as Article 16(4), Article 16(4A), and Article 16(4B), through multiple amendments in response to these rulings have significantly affected affirmative actions in public employment.
Constitutional Provisions for Promotion in Reservation
The Constitution of India provides for reservation in public employment under several provisions. Article 16(4) enables the State to make provisions for reservation for any backward class of citizens who are inadequately represented in the services under the State. Article 16(4A) provides for reservation in promotion for the SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented in the services.
Article 16(4B), added by the 81st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000, allows carry forward of unfilled SC/ST reservation quota of a specific year to the next year. Article 335 acknowledges the need for special measures for considering the claims of SCs and STs in public employment to ensure their inclusion.
Future Implications and Concluding Remarks
Presently, the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), SCs, STs, and backward classes is under challenge in the Supreme Court. The court’s decision may be another critical milestone in the jurisprudence of reservation. It might potentially broaden the traditional understanding of backwardness to include economic backwardness in addition to social backwardness.
The case of Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs Chief Minister (2021), where the Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act 2018 was struck down, demonstrates how states’ attempts to breach reservation limits are met with a strong judicial response in favour of maintaining equality.
While reservations serve as essential tools for addressing socio-economic disparities, concerns about meritocracy and reverse discrimination persist. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, maintaining a balance between affirmative action and ensuring equal opportunities remains a critical challenge.
