Debate on Exceeding the 50% Reservation Limit in India

Reservation Limit Latest News

• The debate on the 50% reservation cap has been reignited, with petitions and political demands pushing for higher quotas and sub-categorisation of benefits.

Introduction

• The question of whether reservations in India should exceed the judicially imposed 50% cap has resurfaced with growing political and social demands. 
• Recent political statements, such as the call for 85% reservation in Bihar, coupled with petitions before the Supreme Court seeking ‘creamy layer’ provisions for SCs and STs, highlight the complexity of balancing affirmative action with constitutional guarantees of equality.

‹ ›

Constitutional Framework on Reservations

• Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment, while simultaneously empowering the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
• At the central level, reservations currently stand at:
  • OBCs: 27%
  • SCs: 15%
  • STs: 7.5%
  • EWS: 10%
• This brings the total reservation to 59.5%, already above the 50% ceiling set by judicial precedents but justified on grounds of EWS being a separate category.

Key Judicial Pronouncements on the Cap

• The debate on reservation ceilings originates from two concepts of equality: formal equality (treating all citizens alike) and substantive equality (affirmative measures to address historical disadvantages).
• Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962): Held that reservations should be within “reasonable limits” and capped at 50%.
• State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975): Opened the door for substantive equality, observing that reservations are not an exception but an extension of equality.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Upheld 27% OBC reservations, reaffirmed the 50% ceiling, and introduced the concept of the ‘creamy layer’ for OBCs.
• Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022): Upheld the 10% EWS quota, clarifying that the 50% limit applied to backward classes and not economically weaker sections.
• State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024): A seven-judge Bench emphasised the need for introducing creamy layer principles for SCs and STs.

Emerging Issues and Demands

• Calls for Higher Quotas: Political leaders have argued that the reservation percentage should reflect the demographic proportion of backward classes, which many estimate to be far higher than 50%. This has led to demands for caste census to generate reliable data.
• Unequal Distribution of Benefits: The Rohini Commission found that 97% of OBC reservation benefits were cornered by about 25% of castes, while nearly 1,000 OBC communities saw no representation. Similar concerns exist within SCs and STs, raising the demand for sub-categorisation.
• Creamy Layer Debate for SCs/STs: While OBCs have a creamy layer exclusion, SCs and STs do not. Critics argue that this results in relatively better-off groups monopolising benefits. Others counter that many SC/ST vacancies remain unfilled, making such exclusions counterproductive.
• Backlog of Vacancies: Government data indicates 40-50% of reserved seats across SC, ST, and OBC categories remain vacant, largely due to systemic gaps in recruitment and access.

Balancing Equality and Social Justice

• The central dilemma is balancing the right to equality of opportunity with the need for social justice. 
• Expanding reservations beyond the 50% cap could be seen as compromising merit and constitutional equality, yet empirical data highlights the persistent underrepresentation of marginalised communities.
• Experts suggest reforms such as:
  • Sub-categorisation within OBCs and SC/ST groups to ensure fairer distribution of benefits.
  • A “two-tier” system prioritising the most marginalised.
  • Greater investment in skill development and employment creation, reducing overdependence on public-sector reservations.

Source: TH