Reservation generates more heat than light in Indian society. Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. However, there are some exceptions to it, such as clause 3. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children, clause 4 and clause 5, for special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Affirmative action, or reservation, was introduced to uplift the downtrodden, specifically the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Initially, this system worked effectively, but by the mid-1980s, it faced rampant ethical misuse.
The Mandal Commission’s recommendations in 1990 and the subsequent Indra Sawhney judgment in 1992 by the Supreme Court (SC) validated reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). They introduced the concept of the “creamy layer” for OBCs. This meant OBC individuals from economically advanced backgrounds would not benefit from reservations. As a result, the upliftment of non-creamy layer OBCs was significant, leading to comparable cut-off marks between Open and OBC candidates in elite exams like UPSC and State Public Service Commissions.
However, similar reforms for SCs and STs have not been implemented. While reservation was introduced as a concession for these communities, many elite individuals within these groups view it as a privilege or a fundamental right. This perception persists despite the SC’s 2020 ruling that reservation is not a fundamental right. Article 15 clearly states that reservation should be for the “socially and educationally backward,” implying that both criteria must be met. Yet, many SC and ST candidates from affluent backgrounds exploit the reservation system. For example, siblings Tina Dabi (AIR 1 in 2016) and Riya Dabi (AIR 15 in 2021), who hail from a creamy layer background with Class 1 officer parents, benefited from reservations despite never facing caste discrimination.
This situation creates “Dalit Brahmins” and “Adivasi Brahmins”—individuals who are socially backward on paper but elite in reality. This represents an injustice to deserving candidates within their communities. The government faces a significant challenge in addressing this issue. If it attempts to introduce a creamy layer concept for SCs and STs, opposition parties may frame it as an attempt to remove reservations, leading to political backlash.
Despite recognizing the need to rationalize the reservation system, the Modi government is constrained by the potential political fallout. This law suggests that significant reforms must be implemented gradually to avoid resistance and backlash. Applying this principle, the Modi government might adopt a cautious approach to reservation reforms.
To rationalize the reservation system without triggering significant political opposition and to address the complexities of reservation reforms in India, the Modi government can adopt a multifaceted approach that begins with the gradual implementation of the creamy layer concept for SCs and STs. This process should start with consultations and public debates to build consensus and reduce resistance. Launching awareness campaigns to educate the public about the need for these reforms is crucial. Highlighting success stories of non-creamy layer candidates benefiting from a more equitable reservation system can help garner public support. Implementing incremental changes, such as setting income or asset thresholds for SC and ST reservations similar to the OBC creamy layer criteria, can further refine the policy without causing significant disruption.
Additionally, the government could test the creamy layer concept in select states or regions before a nationwide rollout, using data and feedback to fine-tune the approach. Encouraging judicial review and endorsement of the creamy layer concept for SCs and STs would provide legal backing and reduce political opposition, much like the Supreme Court’s ruling for OBCs. Engaging stakeholders, including community leaders, activists, and politicians from SC and ST communities, in the reform process is essential. Their support can help mitigate resistance and lend credibility to the initiative, ensuring that the reforms are perceived as fair and beneficial for the truly socially and educationally backward sections of society.
The Modi government can rationalize the reservation system gradually, ensuring reforms align with political realities while avoiding excessive changes at once. This approach seeks to create a more equitable system that genuinely benefits socially and educationally backward sections. A significant development occurred on August 1, 2024, when the Supreme Court, in the State of Punjab & Ors. vs Davinder Singh & Ors. (2024 LiveLaw SC 538), upheld the permissibility of sub-classifying Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories under Articles 14, 15(4), and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution. This case can be considered as the benchmark for the rationalisation of the Reservation in the favour of deserving individuals and make society more inclusive.
“Dalit Brahmins” and “Adivasi Brahmins”—individuals who are socially backward on paper but elite in reality.