The Constitution of India incorporates several Articles that provide for reservations to promote social equality and ensure adequate representation of historically marginalized communities. Below is a compilation and explanation of these Articles:
1. Article 15(4), 15(5), and 15(6) – Reservation in Educational Institutions
Article 15(4): Empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This clause was introduced through the First Amendment in 1951, following the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), which highlighted the need for such provisions.
Example: A state government implements a policy reserving a certain percentage of seats in public universities for SC and ST students to promote educational inclusivity.
Article 15(5): Inserted by the 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005, this clause enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, and STs concerning admissions to educational institutions, including private unaided institutions, except minority educational institutions.
Example: A private engineering college is mandated to reserve a specific percentage of seats for OBC students as per state policy, enhancing access to technical education for these communities.
Article 15(6): Introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, this clause permits the State to make special provisions for the advancement of economically weaker sections (EWS) of citizens, including reservations in educational institutions.
Example: An economically disadvantaged student from the general category benefits from a 10% reservation in a public university under the EWS quota.
2. Article 16(4), 16(4A), 16(4B), and 16(6) – Reservation in Public Employment
Article 16(4): Allows the State to provide reservations in public employment for any backward class of citizens that, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in public services.
Example: A government department observes underrepresentation of OBC individuals in its workforce and implements a reservation policy to rectify this imbalance.
Article 16(4A): Added by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995, this clause permits the State to provide reservations in promotions for SCs and STs in public employment if they are not adequately represented.
Example: An SC employee in a government office benefits from a reservation policy that facilitates promotions for SC staff, aiming to improve their representation in higher positions.
Article 16(4B): Introduced by the 81st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000, this clause allows unfilled reserved vacancies for SCs and STs to be carried forward to subsequent years, treating them as a separate class of vacancies not subject to the 50% ceiling on reservation.
Example: Unfilled SC/ST vacancies from the previous recruitment cycle are carried forward to the next year, ensuring that these communities have increased opportunities in public employment.
Article 16(6): Inserted by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, this clause enables the State to provide reservations in public employment for economically weaker sections (EWS) of citizens. The Law Advice+1Law Column+1
Example: A government job applicant from an economically disadvantaged background in the general category benefits from a 10% reservation under the EWS quota.Wikipedia
3. Article 46 – Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests
Article 46: Part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, it mandates the State to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs, and protect them from social injustice and exploitation.
Example: The government launches scholarship programs and skill development initiatives targeting SC and ST communities to enhance their socio-economic status.
4. Articles 243D and 243T – Reservation in Local Self-Government
Article 243D: Provides for the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in Panchayats (rural local bodies) and also mandates reservation of not less than one-third of the total seats for women.
Example: In a village panchayat consisting of 10 seats, at least 3 seats are reserved for women, and a proportionate number are reserved for SC and ST members to ensure inclusive representation.
Article 243T: Similar to Article 243D, this provision mandates the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in Municipalities (urban local bodies) and ensures that not less than one-third of the total seats are reserved for women.
Example: In a city municipal corporation with 100 seats, at least 33 seats are reserved for women, and a proportionate number are reserved for SC and ST members to promote diverse representation.
5. Articles 330 and 332 – Reservation of Seats in Legislatures
Article 330: Reserves seats for SCs and STs in the House of the People (Lok Sabha).
Example: Certain parliamentary constituencies are designated as reserved for SC or ST candidates, ensuring their representation in the Lok Sabha.
Article 332: Provides for the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Legislative Assemblies of the States.
Example: Specific constituencies in a state's legislative assembly elections are reserved for SC or ST candidates to ensure their participation in the legislative process.
6. Article 334 – Limitation on Reservation in Legislatures
Article 334: Initially stipulated that the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies would cease after a period of ten years from the commencement of the Constitution. However, this period has been extended through successive amendments.
Example: The reservation of seats for SCs and STs in legislatures, initially intended for ten years, continues to be in effect due to periodic
Reservation in services in the Government of India is a policy designed to promote social justice by providing representation and opportunities to historically marginalized communities. This includes Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and, more recently, Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). The goal is to address social inequalities and ensure that these groups have equitable access to government jobs and educational opportunities.
The concept of reservation in India traces its roots to the efforts made during British rule to uplift the marginalized communities, but it became a formal constitutional provision post-independence.
Historical Background:
Pre-independence: The idea of affirmative action for disadvantaged groups began under British India, particularly after the Government of India Act, 1935, which allowed reserved seats in legislatures.
Post-independence: The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, included several provisions to promote social justice:
Article 15(4): Special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
Article 16(4): Reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class that is not adequately represented in public services.
Early Developments (1950s–1970s):
1950: The Constitution of India provided for 15% reservation for SCs and 7.5% for STs in central government jobs.
Mandal Commission (1979): The commission was set up under the chairmanship of B.P. Mandal to assess the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes. The Mandal Commission recommended 27% reservation for OBCs, which was implemented later.
Mandal Commission Implementation (1990):
1990: Prime Minister V.P. Singh’s government implemented 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs, leading to widespread protests. This was one of the most significant events in the history of reservations in services.
Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) (2019):
2019: The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government jobs and educational institutions, in addition to the existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs.
a. Balancing Merit with Social Justice:
Challenge: A frequent criticism of reservation in services is that it undermines the principle of meritocracy. Critics argue that it lowers standards in government institutions by prioritizing social background over qualifications.
Example: The resistance to the Mandal Commission report in the 1990s was primarily fueled by concerns about meritocracy in government jobs.
b. Defining "Backwardness" and OBC Quota:
Challenge: Determining the criteria for backward classes (especially for OBCs) has been contentious. The challenge has been to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach the most deserving sections, rather than being captured by a small elite within the reserved categories.
Example: The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), popularly known as the Mandal case, upheld the 27% OBC reservation but introduced the concept of the creamy layer to exclude the wealthier and more educated individuals from the OBC quota.
c. Legal Challenges to Reservation:
Challenge: Reservations in promotions have faced legal challenges, as courts have examined whether they are constitutionally valid and necessary.
Example: In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservations in promotions but imposed certain conditions, requiring the government to justify the need for such reservations by showing backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and administrative efficiency.
d. Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS):
Challenge: The introduction of the EWS quota raised questions about whether economic criteria alone can be the basis for affirmative action. It also faced criticism for exceeding the 50% cap on reservations imposed by the Supreme Court.
Example: The EWS reservation brought the total reservation in government jobs and educational institutions to 59.5%, which has been challenged on constitutional grounds, although the Supreme Court upheld its validity in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022).
a. Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951):
The first significant case on reservation. The Supreme Court ruled that caste-based reservations violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equality under Article 15. This led to the first amendment to the Constitution, inserting Article 15(4), which allowed the state to make special provisions for backward classes.
b. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission Case):
This landmark case upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs but introduced the creamy layer concept, excluding the wealthier and more advanced members of the OBC category from availing reservations. The judgment also limited total reservations to 50%, except in extraordinary situations.
c. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006):
The Court upheld reservations in promotions but laid down stringent conditions: the government must prove the backwardness of the group, show their inadequate representation, and ensure that reservations do not adversely affect administrative efficiency.
d. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018):
This case revisited the issue of reservations in promotions for SCs and STs. The Court ruled that the creamy layer principle should also apply to SC/ST categories in promotions, but it did not overturn the policy of reservation in promotions for SCs/STs.
e. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022):
This case challenged the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced the EWS quota. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the amendment, ruling that reservations based solely on economic criteria do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Government of India has continued to expand and refine the reservation policy, but future challenges and developments will likely center around:
Increasing Inclusivity: Expanding the scope of reservation to address intersectional marginalization (gender, region, and caste).
EWS Quota Implementation: Ensuring the smooth implementation of the EWS quota, balancing it with existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs, and addressing legal challenges related to the 50% cap on reservations.
Reviewing the Creamy Layer Concept: There are ongoing debates about expanding the creamy layer exclusion to other reserved categories beyond OBCs (like SC/ST), as highlighted in cases like Jarnail Singh.
Digitization and Efficiency: Efforts are being made to streamline the reservation process using digital platforms, making it more transparent and efficient.
Reservation in services is a critical tool for promoting social justice and equality in India, but it is also one of the most debated and litigated issues. The Government of India continues to face the challenge of balancing equity and merit while ensuring that the benefits of reservation reach the most deserving sections of society. The future of reservation policies will depend on a careful balance between social justice, economic criteria, and legal precedent, with the judiciary playing a crucial role in shaping the contours of these policies.
Reservation in Promotion in Government of India is a specific policy designed to ensure that historically marginalized groups, particularly Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), are not only given access to government jobs but also provided opportunities to rise through the ranks in government services. This concept has evolved through legislative changes, judicial interventions, and government policies.
Foundation of Reservation in Services:
1950: With the adoption of the Indian Constitution, Articles 16(4) and 15(4) were introduced, allowing the state to provide reservations in public employment for socially and educationally backward classes (primarily SCs and STs).
1974: The central government first introduced reservations in promotions for SCs and STs in government services. This was done to address the underrepresentation of these communities in higher ranks of government posts. However, no constitutional provisions specifically mentioned reservation in promotions at that time.
The 77th Constitutional Amendment (1995):
1995: The 77th Constitutional Amendment introduced Article 16(4A), empowering the government to provide reservations in promotions to SCs and STs. This was done to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which had excluded reservations in promotions.
The 85th Constitutional Amendment (2001):
2001: The 85th Amendment further extended Article 16(4A) to include provisions for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority. This meant that SCs and STs promoted under reservation policies would retain their seniority over general category officers promoted at the same time.
The rationale for reservation in promotions stems from the following reasons:
Historical Discrimination: SCs and STs have faced centuries of social, educational, and economic marginalization. Even when they enter the workforce, they face systemic barriers to rise in the hierarchy, making reservations in promotion a necessary step to ensure upward mobility.
Underrepresentation in Higher Posts: Even though SCs and STs have been given reservation in recruitment, their representation in higher posts remained disproportionately low. Promotion policies help correct this imbalance.
Equal Opportunity: The goal is not just to provide entry-level jobs but to ensure equality of opportunity in career progression, which is crucial for building an inclusive public administration.
Addressing Caste-Based Disparities: Caste-based discrimination in the workplace can prevent SCs and STs from getting promotions, so reservation in promotion ensures their upward mobility.
1. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Mandal Commission Case:
The Supreme Court ruled that reservations under Article 16(4) do not extend to promotions. However, the government subsequently passed the 77th Amendment (1995) to overturn this and provide reservation in promotions for SCs and STs.
2. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006):
Key Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments, allowing reservation in promotions but laid down certain conditions.
The Court ruled that the state must show proof of:
Backwardness of the community.
Inadequate representation of SCs/STs in promotions.
The reservation must not affect the overall administrative efficiency (Article 335).
It was also held that the government must gather quantifiable data to justify the need for reservations in promotions.
3. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018):
Key Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the creamy layer concept applies to SCs and STs in reservations in promotions, implying that individuals from SC/ST backgrounds who are economically advanced should not be eligible for promotion reservations.
The Court also clarified that there is no need to prove backwardness again for SCs and STs, overturning a part of the Nagaraj judgment that required this.
4. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2020):
The Supreme Court ruled that reservations in promotions are not a fundamental right, and it is up to the state’s discretion to provide reservations. If the state chooses not to provide reservations, it is not legally bound to justify this decision, as long as it is not arbitrary.
Reservations Continue for SCs/STs: Presently, SCs and STs continue to enjoy reservation benefits in promotions in government services, although OBCs do not have similar reservations.
Creamy Layer for SCs/STs: Post the Jarnail Singh judgment, states and the central government must consider the concept of the creamy layer when applying reservation in promotions for SCs and STs, meaning well-off individuals from these categories are excluded.
Quantifiable Data Requirement: Governments must provide quantifiable data to prove inadequate representation of SCs and STs and the necessity of reservations in promotion.
Administrative Efficiency Clause: The provision of reservations in promotion must ensure that the efficiency of administration is not compromised, per Article 335 of the Constitution.
Digitization and Transparency: One of the key areas the government is focusing on is increasing the transparency of the reservation in promotion process. This includes digitizing employee records, which will help in assessing representation and efficiency in real-time, ensuring proper implementation of promotion policies.
Expanding Data Collection: The government has been working on collecting quantifiable data as mandated by the Supreme Court. The aim is to make sure that reservation in promotions is implemented where necessary, based on the real-time assessment of representation levels of SCs/STs in government services.
Reviewing the Creamy Layer Concept: As per the Jarnail Singh judgment, the creamy layer exclusion for SC/STs in promotions will likely continue. The government may issue clearer guidelines on how to apply the creamy layer in promotions to ensure that benefits reach the most marginalized.
Further Legal Challenges: As reservations in promotions remain a politically and socially sensitive issue, it is expected that there will be further litigation challenging or clarifying aspects of these policies, especially with respect to administrative efficiency and data collection requirements.
Focus on Economic Criteria: With the EWS quota now in place (10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections), there is also the possibility that future discussions might involve a move toward economic criteria for determining promotion eligibility, although caste-based reservations continue to dominate this discourse.
Reservation in promotions in the Government of India has a long and complex history, marked by judicial interventions and constitutional amendments. While it aims to ensure that SCs and STs have equal opportunities for career growth in public services, the policy faces challenges such as the implementation of the creamy layer, gathering quantifiable data, and ensuring that administrative efficiency is maintained. Going forward, the Government of India will need to balance social justice with meritocracy, ensuring that the benefits of reservation policies reach the most disadvantaged without compromising the functioning of government services.