Recently, Tamil Nadu presented a case to the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench arguing that each state should have the power to decide the percentage of reservations as per their own “subjective satisfaction”. This term refers to the ability of the State to identify socially and educationally backward classes within its jurisdiction and set up appropriate reservation percentages for them. These reservations apply to state government jobs and educational admissions.
Interestingly, an earlier ruling by a nine-judge bench in the Indra Sawhney case (also known as the Mandal Commission case) had established a cap of 50% on total reservations.
Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India, 1992: The Turning Point
In the historic Supreme Court case, Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India, 1992, the court upheld a 27% quota for backward classes. However, it struck down the government notification reserving additional 10% government jobs for economically backward classes among the higher castes. Emphasizing population parity, the court also ruled that the combined beneficiaries of reservation should not exceed 50% of India’s population.
This judgment introduced the concept of ‘creamy layer’. It advocated that reservation for backward classes should be limited only to initial appointments and not extend to promotions.
States Challenge The Established Limit
Despite this judgment many states, including Maharashtra, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh, have passed laws breaching the 50% reservation limit since the Indira Sawhney ruling in 1992.
For instance, the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act, 1993 provides 69% reservation in state government jobs and educational institutions. In another shocking move, in 2000, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh declared 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates in school teacher positions in Scheduled Areas. This, however, was later ruled unconstitutional by the apex court.
States’ Concerns Over 50% Ceiling Limit
Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra have contended that the 50% ceiling limit introduced in the Indira Sawhney judgment is not permanently fixed. They believe the judgment needs to be reassessed, considering the significant changes in societal dynamics since 1992.
Additionally, there is contention that the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018 interferes with the states’ power to provide benefits to socially and educationally backward communities within their jurisdiction.
Constitutional Amendments Pertaining To Reservation
Several constitutional amendments have been made revolving around the reservation issue over the years. In 1995, the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act was passed to allow reservations in promotions for SC/ST employees in cases where they are not adequately represented. This provision was made by adding Article 16(4A) to the Constitution.
Similarly, the 81st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000 introduced Article 16(4B) which mandated that unfilled SC/ST quotas of a year, when carried forward to the next year, should not be clubbed with that year’s regular vacancies.
In 2001, the 85th Constitutional Amendment Act was passed providing ‘consequential seniority’ to government servants from SCs and STs in matters of promotions. This had a retrospective effect from 1995.
Most recently, in the 103rd amendment to the Constitution, 10% reservation was introduced for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS).
Way Forward: Review and Balance Needed
To address the concerns and issues arising out of the 50% reservation quota, a review of the 1992 Indira Sawhney judgment is suggested. While deciding the reservation issue, it’s also important to consider whether the states providing reservations are upholding the federal structure of the government or undermining it.
Moreover, a balance needs to be struck between reservation and merit. Overemphasis on reservation could lead to ignoring merit, potentially disrupting the efficiency of administration.
