In recent developments, the Supreme Court of India has deemed the 2000 order by the then-Governor of Andhra Pradesh, providing a 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribes (ST) in school teacher posts in Scheduled Areas, as unconstitutional. The court underscored that the benefits of reservation within Other Backward Castes (OBCs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs) are not trickling down to the truly deserving groups.
Impermissibility of Complete Reservation Under the Constitution
The apex court ruled that complete reservation is not constitutional, with the maximum limit of reservation specified as 50% in the Indra Sawhney case of 1992. Total exclusion through creation of opportunities for one class alone oversteps constitutional boundaries, and becomes discriminatory as it denies just representation to SCs and OBCs. It also infringes on the rights and opportunities of other citizens, thereby violating Articles 14, 15(1), and 16 of the Constitution that establish equality before the law and protection against discrimination.
Reservation Impacts Open Category
The exclusivity of this reservation affects the open category where all vacant posts will be filled by STs, leaving SCs and OBCs disadvantaged. Notably, 50% of unreserved seats that are not claimed by the general category may be filled by reserved groups.
While the Supreme Court allowed the preservation of appointments made under the 2000 order, it cautioned against such provisions in the future. Any additional reservations that exceed the established limit would render these appointments null and void.
Historical Context
A similar order was issued by the Andhra Pradesh government in 1986, but was overturned by the State Administrative Tribunal. Though the state republished the order in 2000, the State’s High Court upheld the decision which was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court.
Failings of Reservation and Need for Review
The court emphasized the failure of the reservation’s trickle-down approach, which fails to reach the OBCs, SCs, and STs who are in genuine need. The court suggests routine revisions to the reservation list without disturbing the total quota, as benefits of reservation should not be monopolized by those who have already been receiving them for 70 years or since their inclusion in the list.
Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India, 1992
In the case of Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India, the court upheld a 27% quota for backward classes, while nullifying a 10% job reservation for economically backward classes amongst higher castes. The court also established that the combined reservation beneficiaries should not exceed 50% of India’s population.
Constitutional (103rd Amendment) Act of 2019
The Constitutional (103rd Amendment) Act of 2019 allocated a 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for the “economically backward” within the unreserved category. The Act amended Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution by adding clauses empowering the government to provide reservation on the basis of economic backwardness. This economic reservation is over and above the 50% cap. The Supreme Court has reserved orders on whether writ petitions challenging economic reservation law should be referred to a constitution bench. Until then, no interim orders would be passed to hinder the implementation of the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act.