After tracing the pre-independence historical evolution of caste-based reservation, I now analyse its post-independence changing calculus (1947-2024) shaped by multiple statutes, executive orders, two Backward Classes Commission Reports, a plethora of judicial pronouncements, and two dozen Constitutional Amendments. I conclude this three-part series at a time when, on the 78th Independence Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi “reiterated the firm resolve to make Bharat Viksit by 2047,” while in her message to the nation, President Droupadi Murmu affirmed the “strengthening of affirmative action as an instrument of inclusion.”.
Phase I (1947-1990) Class Not Caste
At Independence, India inherited reservations for depressed classes in public employment (Government Orders of 1943 and 1946), reservations for depressed classes in the legislature (Poona Pact), and religion-based reservations in the legislature (Communal Award). After the Constitution was promulgated, in addition to 12.5 per cent reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), 5 per cent reservation for Scheduled Tribes (STs) was added. In 1970, reservation was enhanced to 15 per cent (SC) and 7.5 per cent (ST), to make it proportional to the population ratio. There has been no change since then.
Furthermore, the Constitution provided reservation for SC/ST/Anglo-Indian Communities in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for 10 years, while it abolished religion-based reservation. Notwithstanding Article 16(4) empowering the government to provide reservation in jobs for ‘socially and educationally backward classes’ and the deafening clamour from various caste groups, the Central government did not reserve any jobs for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) until 1990. However, the saga of reservation unfolded differently in a few states, particularly south of the Vindhyas.
South of the Vindhyas
At Independence, the reservation policies in vogue in the southern states continued even after the adoption of the Constitution. The most contentious reservations were in educational institutions and employment in Madras Presidency (Tamil Nadu), then known as the Communal G.O. and the state of Mysore (Karnataka). I will revisit these later.
Class, Not Caste
The framers of the Constitution eschewed using the word “caste” to describe any group of citizens belonging to “backward classes”. Instead, they inserted “socially and educationally backward classes” in Article 16(4) but left it undefined. It was much later that “caste” entered the lexicon.
In the Temples of Democracy
Before I discuss reservation in educational institutions and employment, I must address Constitution Articles 330 to 334, which provide reservation in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies – for SC/STs (proportional to the population) and Anglo-Indians (two seats by nomination). Article 334 limited this reservation to ten years, but lawmakers, through decennial amendments to the Constitution, have extended it to 2030. It took 72 years to annul the controversial reservation for the Anglo-Indian community through the Constitution (104th Amendment) Act, 2019.
Undefined
Framers of the Constitution inserted Article 16(4), empowering the state to provide reservation in employment for “socially and educationally backward classes of citizens,” but did not define the term “backward classes.” The concluding remarks of Ambedkar before the Constituent Assembly adopted Clause 16(4) are instructive here: “Somebody asked me: ‘What is [a] backward community’? Well, I think anyone who reads the language of [the] draft will find that we have left it to be determined by each local Government. A backward community is a community which is backwards in the opinion of the Government.”
Circumspect Approach
Notwithstanding Article 16(4), which empowers the state to make provisions for “reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens who, in the opinion of the state, are not adequately represented in the services under the state,” the Central government refrained from providing any reservation for backward classes for forty years after the adoption of the Constitution, even though states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka continued kept pushing the reservation envelope.
Hurried Under Duress
I submit that Article 15(4) was inserted hurriedly under duress, due to political agitation in Tamilandu emanating from two Supreme Court judgements that held the reservation under communal orders as ultra-vires to the Constitution. Insertion of Article 15(4) through the First Amendment was its direct result and within 16 months of the adoption of the Constitution, merely six months before the first General Election, and without the Rajya Sabha in place. Even the Lok Sabha Select Committee, headed by Prime Minister Nehru, submitted its report on the amendment in a record six days, ignoring valid apprehensions and dissent notes from six members, including Shyama Prasad Mukherji and H.N. Kunzru.
Worse, the Select Committee modified the originally introduced Article 15(4) without proper explanation. The Select Committee controversially added a reference to Article 19(2) in Article 15(4) with the lame excuse by PM Nehru—“it was omitted in [the] original bill due to oversight”. Furthermore, the wordings of the bill were changed from “educational, economic, or social advancement of any backward class of citizens” to “advancement of any socially and educationally backward class of citizens”. Lastly, the serious apprehension of many Select Commission members that the provision may be misused by future state governments was summarily brushed aside.
By removing the words “economic advancement” from Article 15(4), Nehru, in one stroke, eliminated poverty as a “defining criterion of backwardness,” and the article, as inserted by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951, eventually became: “Nothing in this article or in Clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the state from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.”
Bridge Too Far
The apprehensions of the Select Committee members soon materialised with the introduction of reservations for OBCs. These reservations were largely usurped by the “forward among backwards,” with the intended benefits failing to reach the truly disadvantaged.
Furthermore, Article 15(4) led to competition among states to reserve increasing numbers of seats, with the beneficiaries largely being the haves rather than the have-nots. This also resulted in a surge of cases requiring adjudication by the higher judiciary.
It is time now to discuss the first Backward Classes Commission.
The Commission
On 29 January 1953, the President constituted the first Backward Classes Commission under Article 340. The 11-member commission, headed by Kaka Kalelkar, was tasked with investigating the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes and making recommendations regarding steps to be taken by the Union or any state to improve their conditions.
The commission identified many social and educational indicators of backward classes, such as traditional occupation; literacy; population and its spatial distribution or concentration; position in the caste hierarchy; representation in government service; traditional apathy for education; lack of educational institutions, facilities, and a defective education system; living in inaccessible areas; and unemployment among the educated. The Commission determined that backwardness was essentially a rural phenomenon. Further, it decided that “caste status” was the predominant criterion of backwardness.
Divided We Stand
Most of the Commission’s recommendations were consensual and had far-reaching implications – pages 159-209 provide a summary of the recommendations. However, two recommendations (Paragraphs 249 and 290) proved to be highly divisive.
Paragraph 249 reserved 70 per cent of seats for OBCs in science, medical, engineering, agriculture, veterinary, and other technical and technological educational institutions of higher learning. Paragraph 290 provided for minimum reservation in employment as follows: Class I (25 per cent), Class II (30 per cent), and Class III and IV (40 per cent).
Paragraphs 249 and 290 led to dissent notes from many members. Moreover, Kaka Kalelkar, after signing the majority report as Chairman, distanced himself from it. As it happened, Kalelkar had delegated the report writing to Mariapa, a member from Mysore state. Mariapa decided to implement the Mysore model at an all-India level.
Head-Man Revolts
When submitting the Commission Report to the President, Kaka Kalelkar appended a 30-page plea urging the president to reject the report. He argued that the caste-based reservations and other remedies proposed in the report were against the interests of society and the country. He added: “The principle of caste should be eschewed because then alone [will it] be possible to help extremely poor and deserving members of all communities.” He further wrote, “My eyes have opened now with [a] rude shock, which [has] driven me to the conclusion that the remedies we suggested were worse than the devil we were out to combat.”
The Government of India presented the report to Parliament on 3 September 1956, along with a memorandum stating, “The caste system is the greatest hindrance to India’s progress [towards] an egalitarian society, and as such, recognising certain specified castes as backward will only serve to perpetuate existing distinctions based on caste.”
The report was subsequently shelved without any discussion in Parliament.
The Order
On 14 August 1961, the Central government, through a government order, advised states that while they had the discretion to choose their own criteria for defining backwardness, the view of the Government of India was that it would be better to “apply economic tests than to go by caste.” It also suggested that states compile their own lists of backward classes. This order initiated an era of laissez-faire. Over the next twenty-five years, ten states set up sixteen backward class commissions with the purpose of providing reservations in education under Article 15(4) and government jobs under Article 16(4).
South Sizzles, North Burns
While Southern states successfully pushed the boundaries of the reservation to the extreme, Northern states found it challenging to implement the OBC reservation smoothly. In Uttar Pradesh, a 15 per cent OBC quota under Ram Naresh Yadav and in Bihar, a 20 per cent OBC quota under Karpoori Thakur was met with arson, destruction of public property, and the forced closure of schools and colleges. In the North, both sides were dissatisfied: the backward classes felt it was too little, too late, while the forward classes viewed it as an assault on meritocracy.
Part B (1978-2014): Caste Asserts, Class takes Backseat
In this politically charged situation, amidst the ascendency of the middle-class peasantry in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar (predominantly from backward castes), Prime Minister Morarji Desai announced the formation of the five-member Second Backward Classes Commission on the floor of Parliament on 20 December 1978. The commission, headed by B.P. Mandal, consisted entirely of members from backward castes. This composition, where all members belonged to the beneficiary group, could be considered a classic example of “police, pleader, and judge” being the same, potentially impacting the commission’s recommendations.
Devil in the Detail
The terms of reference (ToR) of the Mandal Commission mirrored those of the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, with one significant difference. The Mandal Commission, by virtue of the third point in its ToR, was specifically tasked with: “examin[ing] the desirability or otherwise of making provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of such backward classes of citizens which are not adequately represented in public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any state.”
The Report
Unsurprisingly, the main recommendations of the Mandal Commission (1980) revolved around reservations in employment and educational institutions. These included:
- Job Reservation: The commission, having estimated the OBC population at 52 per cent, proposed a 52 per cent reservation in all posts in “the central government, state governments, public sector undertakings (PSUs), nationalised banks, universities, affiliated colleges, and the private sector that received financial assistance from the government.” However, citing “legal constraints” (the 50 per cent ceiling on reservations established by the Supreme Court in the Balaji case), the commission settled for a 27 per cent OBC reservation, excluding states where existing reservations already exceeded 27 per cent.
- Reservation in Promotion: The commission also recommended a 27 per cent reservation in promotions at every level in both central and state governments.
- Reservation in Education: A 27 per cent reservation was proposed for all scientific and professional educational institutions under both central and state governments. States with reservation levels exceeding 27 per cent were to maintain the status quo.
- Double Benefit: The commission stipulated that OBC candidates recruited on merit in an open competition would not be adjusted against the 27 per cent quota.
Issues Galore
Despite being discussed in Parliament twice, in 1982 and 1983, the Mandal Commission report was not implemented by either the Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi governments due to various inconsistencies. Some of these inconsistencies included the disproportionately large number of backward classes identified—3,743 compared to 2,399 by the Kaka Kalelkar Commission; the assertion that caste was the sole “recognisable and persistent collective” in Hindu society; and the selective use of Supreme Court judgements that suited its hypothesis, while ignoring others, including the Balaji case, which held that “caste” could not be the predominant criterion for backwardness.
However, the most controversial aspect was the commission’s estimation of the OBC population, both in terms of the base adopted and the methodology employed. In a non-empirical manner, through a process of elimination, the commission arrived at an OBC population of 52 per cent (Hindu 43.7 per cent, non-Hindu 8.40 per cent).
North Rises
During the decade when the Mandal Commission recommendations remained unimplemented, north India witnessed the political ascendency of the “middle-class peasantry”—the so-called backward castes—in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. These castes became a dominant force within the Janata Dal, formed by V.P. Singh, who became Prime Minister after the 1989 Lok Sabha elections. Singh subsequently accepted the Mandal Commission recommendations through an Office Memorandum dated 13 August 1990. On that day, the Prime Minister addressed Parliament, stating: “…treating unequals as equals is [the] greatest injustice…and [the] correction of this injustice [is] very important…Let us not forget that the poor are begging for some crumbs. They have suffered for thousands of years.”
I contend that the key beneficiaries of the Mandal recommendations did not endure such suffering for 1,000 years. Those who did suffer continue to do so, with the benefits of affirmative action failing to reach them. I leave it to readers to form their own judgements.
Stalled
V.P. Singh’s 1990 order accepting the Mandal Commission recommendations frayed the social compact, creating political fissures and leading to widespread protests. Writ petitions flooded the courts, accompanied by destruction of public property and self-immolation in north, east and west India, ultimately compelling the Supreme Court to stay the implementation of the recommendations. The Chief Justice referred the case to a nine-judge Constitution Bench, in what is now famously known as the Indra Sawhney case.
I will return to the Indra Sawhney case shortly. But before that, it is time for the anatomy of a Supreme Court judgement, which I consider pathbreaking and historical.
Anatomy of a Judgement
The case, Vasanta Kumar v. State of Karnataka, saw a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud deliver five separate judgements on 8 May 1985. While the five judges wrote five distinct judgements, the verdict could have had far-reaching consequences. This, again, was a case from Karnataka, which had reserved 68 per cent of seats in educational institutions and 66 per cent in government employment. I will briefly discuss the key points of the verdict.
First, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphatically stated that, in its current form, SC/ST reservation should continue for a maximum of 15 years (totalling 50 years since the adoption of the Constitution). After this period, reservations, he argued, should be subject to a means test (assessing economic backwardness). He believed that 50 years was sufficient time for the upper strata of the oppressed classes to overcome the harmful effects of social oppression, and that the privileged among the underprivileged should not monopolise preferential benefits indefinitely. For backward classes reservation, he proposed two conjunctive tests: backwardness comparable to SC/STs and fulfilment of the means test. He further added that the policy of reservation in employment, education, and the legislature should be reviewed every five years to rectify any distortions arising from it.
Second, Justice Desai, in a well-explained judgement, held that economic criteria should be the sole determinant for identifying backward classes, discarding all other criteria.
Third, Justice Chinnappa Reddy stated that caste, in the Indian context, was the primary indicator of social backwardness. He suggested that if, in a given case, certain members had progressed sufficiently in social, economic, and educational spheres, an upper-income ceiling could be implemented to ensure that reservations reached the truly deserving.
Fourth, Justice A.P. Sen opined that poverty should be the predominant and sole factor for granting special provisions under Article 15(4) or 16(4). Caste, he argued, should only be used for identifying groups comparable to SC/STs, and reservations should be for a limited period.
Fifth, Justice Venkataramiah believed that backward classes could be classified based on caste but emphasised two key points: the application of a means test and periodic reviews to make necessary adjustments.
Had the key messages of this judgement—backwardness comparable to SC/STs, the means test, the centrality of poverty and economic criteria, and reservation for a limited period—been heeded, it would have been a different Bharat today.
Indra Sawhney Judgement
A 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench in 1992 upheld the 27 per cent reservation for OBCs but left many questions unanswered. Here’s a summary of the historic judgement:
First, the judgement did not specify a timeframe for the lapse or review of reservations, even though the Mandal Commission had suggested a review after 20 years, with a provision for reservations to last one full generation.
Second, disagreeing with Chief Justice Chandrachud’s 1985 judgement, the bench determined that OBC backwardness did not need to reach the level of SC/STs to warrant reservation.
Third, it excused the court from framing procedures or methods for identifying backward classes (despite neither the Constitution nor any law prescribing it). It left this responsibility to the designated authority—the Mandal Commission, in this instance.
Fourth, it held that caste constitutes a class if it is socially backward for the purpose of Article 16(4). The earlier, near-unanimous judicial view was that groups had to be both socially and educationally backwards, not socially or educationally backward. It agreed that even non-Hindus could have backward classes. It also held that, within OBC reservation, the “creamy layer” could and should be excluded, and economic criteria could be used for this purpose.
Fifth, it held that backward classes cannot be identified solely based on economic criteria in a country where, even in 2024, 80 crore Indians depend on free rations from the government. Had Nehru not omitted “economic advancement” from the original Article 15(4), such a judgement might not have emerged from the apex court.
Sixth, it agreed that there was no constitutional barrier to categorising backward classes into backward and more backward categories. Had targeted reservation been implemented solely for the latter category, India today might look very different.
Seventh, it fixed the maximum permissible reservation under Article 16(4) at 50 per cent, except in extraordinary circumstances. However, it stipulated that this 50 per cent rule should apply annually and cannot be calculated based on the total strength of a class, category, service, or cadre. This aspect of the judgement has significantly distorted the contemporary understanding of reservations.
Eighth, it held that Article 16(4) made no provision for reservations in promotions.
Ninth, the judgement stated that reservation can be implemented in a service or category only when the state is satisfied that the representation of backward classes therein is inadequate. This crucial aspect has been largely disregarded by states currently pursuing “proportional reservation” instead of “adequate reservation.”
Tenth, the 10 per cent reservation in favour of “other economically backward sections” not covered by existing schemes was struck down as constitutionally invalid.
Eleventh, the judgement deemed it unnecessary to express an opinion on the accuracy and adequacy of the Mandal Commission’s findings.
The entire edifice of this judgement rested on a few key hypotheses: that caste could be an indicator of social backwardness, that social backwardness forms the crux of Article 16(4), that social backwardness contributes to educational and economic backwardness, and that these factors are interconnected with lower-status occupations in Indian society. Finally, it asserted that the scope of Article 16(4) was far broader than that of Article 15(4).
Phase III: 2014-2024
I start the phase III story with a tale of two states.
From South of the Vindhyas
In an affidavit submitted to the Madras High Court on 3 April 2024, in the case of Periya Nambi Narasimha Gopalan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu government expressed its inability to implement the 10 per cent EWS quota in education as demanded by the petitioner. The state’s plea cited the fact that 89 per cent of its population was already covered under existing reservations: backward classes (68 per cent), scheduled castes (20 per cent), and scheduled tribes (1 per cent).
If the High Court ultimately affirms the 10 per cent EWS reservation (already upheld by the Supreme Court), only 1 per cent of Tamil Nadu’s population will remain eligible for the merit-based quota. This begs the question: how much reservation is too much? Furthermore, it raises questions about Ambedkar’s assertion during the Constituent Assembly debates that “reservation must be for [a] minority” and about Supreme Court judgements in the Balaji and Indra Sawhney cases, which limited total reservations to 50 per cent.
From the Land of Buddha
On this Independence Day, the prime minister rightly spoke of rekindling the spirit of the world-famous Nalanda University. I have just compiled data from the latest 2023 caste survey of Bihar, and my findings are revealing. Even before Bihar increased its reservation quota to 65 per cent in 2023 ( which has been stayed by the High Court and is currently pending before the Supreme Court), the representation of reserved categories (OBCs, SCs, and STs) in government services in Bihar stood at 68.51 per cent, with a comparable representation in educational institutions.
Applying the litmus test of the Balaji case, both the Bihar and Tamil Nadu reservation policies appear to be a fraud on the constitutional power conferred upon the state. However, no action can be taken against Tamil Nadu, as its 69 per cent reservation policy has been included in the Ninth Schedule, rendering it non-justiciable. If the Supreme Court sets aside Bihar’s 65 per cent reservation policy, will the state also pursue a constitutional amendment?
Rule Not Sacred
The 103rd Amendment, 2019, amended Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to introduce a 10 per cent reservation for the EWS category. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench in the Indra Sawhney case had previously ruled that such a quota was ultra vires (beyond legal power or authority). However, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in a 3:2 verdict on 7 November 2022, in the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, upheld the reservation, interpreting that the 50 per cent cap on quotas was not inviolable.
Reimagining Affirmative Action
Total government sector jobs (Centre, states, PSUs) represent a small portion of organised employment and a minuscule portion of total employment. With reservation having become a self-fulfilling prophecy, it’s time to reimagine affirmative action if India truly aspires to become a ‘Viksit Bharat’ by 2047.
The country must address the root causes of social, educational, and economic backwardness. Contrary to the assertions of Kaka Kalelkar and B.P. Mandal, the notion that such backwardness is solely a rural problem is a myth in contemporary India. It will be an absurdity in 2047 when 50 per cent of India’s projected 160 crore population will reside in cities. Reservation will not solve the problems of a ‘Viksit Bharat’; transformative reforms in education and employment will.
The time to act is now. Time is the one thing India does not have.
The issue of caste-based reservation is a ticking time bomb for the executive and legislative branches and fodder for political parties during elections. Already both the ruling dispensation and the main Opposition party – the Congress – have made it clear that they do not agree with the Supreme Court’s latest judgement about the “creamy layer in SC/ST”.
The judiciary however is unshackled and is not bound by such constraints that the executive and legislatures face. It is time for a full Supreme Court Constitutional Bench to frame key questions to initiate the rollback of caste-based reservation. The framers of the Constitution envisioned a “casteless, egalitarian India”; what we have is a “caste-ridden India.” This generation has missed the bus; let us safeguard the future of the next generation, irrespective of caste, creed, race, or religion. We have lost 77 years waging a war of self-destruction. Let the journey towards a ‘Viksit Bharat’ commence today. I have nothing more to say. Period.
Concluded
The author is Multidisciplinary Thought Leader with Action Bias, India Based International Impact Consultant, and keen watcher of changing national and international scenario. He works as President Advisory Services of Consulting Company BARSYL. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Comments
0 comment