Will Removing Reservations Create Equality?

— ✍️ Dundra Kumara Swamy

The slogan “Remove Reservations” has returned to public debate, most recently at Jantar Mantar, where demands were raised to replace caste-based reservations with purely economic criteria. At first glance, the argument appears persuasive: every poor young person deserves an equal opportunity, and merit should matter. But India must ask a deeper constitutional question. Will abolishing reservations actually create equality, or will it merely make long-standing social inequality less visible?

The debate often reduces reservations to a seat in a university or a government job. That is a narrow understanding of a policy rooted in India’s constitutional vision. The Constitution was framed for a society shaped by centuries of caste-based exclusion, where access to education, occupations, dignity, and public institutions was never equally distributed. The framers therefore recognised that formal equality alone was insufficient; those historically denied opportunities required measures that would enable genuine participation in public life.

This is precisely where the distinction between economic disadvantage and social disadvantage becomes important. Poverty undoubtedly limits opportunity, and governments have a responsibility to support economically weaker citizens through scholarships, quality education, skill development, and financial assistance. But social discrimination does not disappear simply because an individual’s income rises. A person may become economically secure and still encounter barriers rooted in caste identity, representation, and institutional access.

The Constitution reflects this distinction. Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 empower the State to pursue substantive equality rather than merely treating everyone identically. Reservation is therefore not designed only to address poverty; it is intended to correct historical exclusion and improve representation in institutions where decisions are made. The constitutional framework also continues to recognise socially and educationally backward classes through provisions such as Article 342A, reinforcing that backwardness is not measured by income alone.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly viewed reservations through the lens of representation. In its constitutional discussions on Article 16(4), the Court observed that reservations seek to provide historically underrepresented communities with a proper look-in within public administration and governance. More recent judicial reasoning has also reaffirmed that affirmative action remains a constitutionally permissible instrument for addressing the disadvantages faced by socially and educationally backward groups.

That said, defending reservations should not mean refusing to examine their shortcomings. The question of who actually benefits is legitimate. Within the OBC category, there are enormous internal disparities in education, employment, political representation, and social mobility. This is why debates around the creamy layer, data-driven review, and greater attention to the most backward communities within OBCs deserve serious consideration. Reforming the system is both necessary and consistent with constitutional principles.

The language of “merit” also deserves closer scrutiny. Can examination scores alone measure merit in a deeply unequal society? A student educated in well-funded schools with access to coaching, technology, and academic support does not begin the race from the same starting line as a student from an under-resourced rural or socially disadvantaged background. Merit cannot be separated from the opportunities available before the competition even begins.

Equally, those who question reservations should not be dismissed outright. Important questions remain: How long should reservations continue? Are benefits reaching the intended communities? Are some families repeatedly securing the advantages while the most marginalised remain excluded? These are valid concerns. But identifying flaws in implementation is not, by itself, a compelling argument for dismantling the constitutional principle of affirmative action.

The larger issue extends beyond employment or admissions. Who occupies universities, research institutions, the higher judiciary, the civil services, corporate boardrooms, and the media? Who shapes public policy? Democracy is not complete merely because every citizen can vote. It is strengthened when historically excluded communities also participate in the institutions where national decisions are made. Representation is therefore not a symbolic demand; it is central to democratic legitimacy.

India should resist reducing this debate to a binary choice between “retain” or “remove” reservations. The real challenge is to build a society where equal opportunity is meaningful, representation is broad-based, and public institutions reflect the diversity of the country they serve. Reservations should be reviewed where necessary, refined through credible data, and implemented more fairly so that benefits reach those who need them most. But to argue for their removal without demonstrating that social inequality has substantially disappeared is to confuse the aspiration of equality with its achievement. The Constitution does not merely promise equality; it provides instruments to make equality possible. Until that promise is genuinely realised, the pursuit of social justice remains an unfinished democratic responsibility.

- The author is a High Court advocate, National President BC Dal and Chairman of National BC Reservation Struggle Coordination JAC.