The Supreme Court (SC) recently clarified the use of vertical and horizontal reservations in a case, shedding light on how these provisions play out in practical scenarios.
Understanding Vertical and Horizontal Reservation
In India, reservations are seen as a form of positive discrimination, aimed at promoting equality among marginalized sections to protect them from social and historical injustice. Vertical reservation is provided for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), working separately for each group specified under law, as stipulated by Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
Horizontal reservation, on the other hand, offers equal opportunities to certain beneficiary categories, such as women, veterans, the transgender community, and individuals with disabilities, regardless of their vertical reservation status. This type of reservation is represented under Article 15 (3) of the Indian Constitution.
Working Mechanism of Reservations
A unique feature of the reservation system in India lies in the application of the horizontal quota separately to each vertical category rather than across the board. For instance, if there is a 50% horizontal quota for women, half of the selected candidates should be women in each vertical quota category. This means that half of all selected SC candidates, half of the unreserved or general category, and so forth, must be women.
A Key Case: Saurav Yadav Versus State of Uttar Pradesh
The case of Saurav Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh in 2020 highlighted questions concerning the application of various reservation classes in selection procedures for constables in Uttar Pradesh. The state government’s policy was to restrict reserved category candidates to their categories, even when they had secured higher grades. However, the Supreme Court ruled against this, holding that if a candidate from a vertical-horizontal reserved category scores enough to qualify without the vertical reservation, they would be counted as qualifying without such reservation.
Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling
The court’s ruling provides clarity on the implementation and application of reservations. It aids more needy SC, ST, and OBC candidates by facilitating the recruitment of high-scoring candidates under the general category. Additionally, it negates any practices that kept the general category ‘reserved’ for upper castes.
Constitutional Regulations Governing Reservation in India
Several Constitutional provisions govern reservations in India. For instance, Article 15(3) supports protective discrimination favouring women. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) provide for reserving positions in government services for members of SC/ST communities. The Constitution also enables the state to take measures for providing reservation in promotion (Article 16(4A)) and to fill unfilled vacancies reserved for SCs/STs from a previous year in the succeeding year (Article 16(4B)).
Moreover, the Constitution provides provisions for specific representation through reservation of seats for SCs and STs in Parliament (Articles 330 and 332), Panchayats (Article 243D), Municipalities (Article 233T), as well as considerations for SCs and STs claims in alignment with administrative efficacy (Article 335).
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment bridges a crucial gap in understanding the Indian reservation system. It delivers a combination of social justice and efficiency, ensuring that no deserving candidate is left behind.