New Delhi- Recent shifts in India’s reservation landscape, marked by the government’s introduction of the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation and the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) reservations in Haryana, have fueled intense debates over the intentions and implications of these policies.
These initiatives not only stray from the core objectives of reservation as enshrined in the Constitution but also disregard centuries of systemic oppression that these measures were meant to redress. The Supreme Court’s judgments upholding these policies further underscore the necessity for a more comprehensive approach rooted in data and historical understanding.
The reservation policy in India was conceived as a corrective tool to address the deep-seated social inequities resulting from thousands of years of caste-based discrimination.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, viewed reservations as a means to uplift socially oppressed groups, enabling them to participate equally in society. Reservations for SCs and STs were established to correct historical injustices, not simply to offer economic relief.
The Constituent Assembly debates on affirmative action underscore this objective. Ambedkar emphasized that reservations were not a privilege but a measure of reparation to account for the “inequality of opportunities due to social and historical discrimination.” Affirmative action was, therefore, meant to address structural and systemic barriers, not just individual economic hardship.
In 2019, the BJP introduced the EWS reservation, reserving 10% of seats in public employment and educational institutions for economically weaker sections of the general category, which traditionally has not been eligible for reservation benefits.
The government argued that economic deprivation is a legitimate criterion for reservation, irrespective of caste. To make EWS reservations genuinely inclusive, the economic cut-off limit should be substantially reduced, focusing exclusively on poverty rather than caste. This would ensure that benefits reach the poorest and most destitute populations, rather than reserving the quota primarily for the general category.
As the term “Economically Weaker Section” suggests, this reservation should serve those with the greatest economic hardship across all communities, allowing India’s most vulnerable citizens equitable access to opportunities.
The EWS reservation is primarily a political tool designed to win favor among economically disadvantaged upper-caste communities, particularly in states where upper castes wield considerable political influence. By expanding reservation benefits to economically deprived sections of upper castes, the BJP sought to address the dissatisfaction of groups previously left out of the reservation system. This move aligns with the party’s strategy to consolidate votes among communities that have traditionally been resistant to caste-based reservations.
While addressing economic inequality is essential, EWS reservation dilutes the original purpose of affirmative action. As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed in his dissenting judgment on the EWS case, the Constitution envisioned reservation as a remedy for historically disadvantaged groups, not as a poverty alleviation tool. By extending reservation based solely on economic status, the EWS quota shifts the focus away from addressing social discrimination, which remains deeply embedded in Indian society.
The Supreme Court’s majority ruling upholding the EWS quota has been controversial for sidestepping these concerns. It failed to account for the historical basis and foundational goal of reservations as a tool to correct centuries-old structural inequities. Reservation was never envisaged as a tool for economic upliftment; it was always for ensuring collective participation and empowering the population who through generations and centuries were made to believe in their subservient existence. Since independence, economic growth and upliftment from poverty were always strategized through economic planning and reform programs; reservations were never considered an employment breeder.
Following the Supreme Court’s endorsement of sub-categorization, the Haryana government implemented policies dividing SC/ST reservations into sub-categories, purportedly to ensure fairer distribution among different castes. The move, however, is widely perceived as a political strategy designed to fragment SC/ST communities, weakening their collective political influence by creating divisions within.
In states like Haryana, where caste affiliations are strongly linked to political loyalty, the BJP’s sub-categorization policy serves a strategic purpose. By dividing SC/ST reservations into smaller sub-quotas, the government appears to cater to smaller, less represented sub-castes, potentially securing their political allegiance while undermining the unity within these groups. Such fragmentation benefits the ruling party politically but weakens the collective strength of marginalized communities.
The reservation system was not intended to further divide marginalized communities but rather to uplift them collectively. Justice Ravindra Bhat’s dissent in the EWS reservation case warned against reservation policies that deviate from their core goal, emphasizing that reservations should focus on social justice rather than political gain. Sub-categorization threatens to fragment SC/ST groups into smaller factions, diverting attention from structural reforms that could address social discrimination more effectively.
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the EWS reservation and allowing SC/ST sub-categorization have raised concerns about the judiciary’s understanding of affirmative action’s historical and social context. By endorsing EWS, the court has effectively redefined reservation as a poverty-alleviation tool, diluting its original intent as a mechanism to uplift historically disadvantaged groups.
The rulings have been criticized for overlooking the centuries of exploitation that reservations seek to address. Citing judgments such as Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which upheld the importance of caste-based reservations to counteract historical discrimination, critics argue that the EWS reservation misinterprets the purpose of affirmative action. The Supreme Court’s decision to extend reservations to economically disadvantaged upper castes disregards the fact that caste-based oppression, unlike economic disadvantage, is a form of structural injustice that persists even today.
One of the most significant critiques of these policies is their lack of grounding in comprehensive, scientific data. A nationwide caste census and socio-economic survey, gathering detailed data on caste, income, and social status, would provide a more accurate foundation for reservation policies. This data is essential to ensure that affirmative action serves its intended purpose of social justice, not just political convenience. In its absence, policies such as EWS reservation and SC/ST sub-categorization risk perpetuating inequalities by relying on assumptions and political considerations rather than factual data. Dr. Ambedkar envisioned that reservation policies would evolve based on social realities; without a robust dataset, the country risks making uninformed decisions that could exacerbate social divides.
For reservation policies to be genuinely effective, they must adhere to the foundational principles of social justice enshrined in the Constitution. Ambedkar and other framers of the Constitution saw reservations as a means to counteract deep-seated caste discrimination and provide equal opportunities to those who have historically been denied them. Reservation was never meant to be a short-term solution for economic disadvantage; it was intended to transform society by addressing historical wrongs.
Policies that overlook this genesis and treat reservation as an instrument for economic equality rather than social justice deviate from the Constitution’s intent. As former Chief Justice R.M. Lodha remarked, “Social justice is not merely a poverty-alleviation tool; it is about righting historical wrongs to ensure that the oppressed are given the opportunity they have long been denied.”
The BJP’s recent policies on EWS reservation and SC/ST sub-categorization signal a troubling shift away from the constitutional principles that underpin India’s reservation system. By prioritizing economic criteria and fragmenting SC/ST communities, these policies risk diluting the spirit of affirmative action. The Supreme Court’s judgments, though constitutionally valid, reveal a limited understanding of reservation as a tool for social transformation rather than mere economic redistribution.
To safeguard the constitutional essence of reservation, it is imperative that India conducts a comprehensive caste census, collecting socio-economic data to guide future affirmative action policies. Only with such data can the government and judiciary ensure that reservations fulfill their intended purpose of social justice and equity. As India moves forward, it must reaffirm its commitment to the original vision of affirmative action: one that acknowledges historical injustice, transcends political motives, and strives for a more inclusive and equitable society.
-Advocate Mukesh Kishor, Managing Partner at Audacious Law Network, is a Supreme Court lawyer championing human and labour rights with a strong focus on fair labour practices and safeguarding fundamental freedoms.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.