Reservation and 50% Cap: Constitutional Provisions and Judicial Pronouncements

Context: The Leader of Opposition in Bihar, has announced that if his alliance comes to power, they would raise the reservation quota to 85%.

• Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Union government on a petition seeking the introduction of a ‘creamy layer’-like system within reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

Constitutional Provisions for Reservation and 50% Cap

• Article 15(1): Prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• Article 15(4): Empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backwards classes (SEBCs), SCs, and STs.
• Article 15(5): Provides for reservation in educational institutions, including private ones (except minority institutions).
• Article 15(6): Introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019), provides for reservation of 10% for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
• Article 16(1): Guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment.
• Article 16(4): Allows reservation of appointments/posts for backwards classes not adequately represented in State services.
• Article 16(4A): Provides for reservation in promotions for SCs/STs (inserted by the 77th Amendment, 1995).
• Article 16(6): Provides 10% EWS reservation in government jobs.

Key Judicial Pronouncements

Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962)

• Reservations should be within “reasonable limits.”
• Capped reservations at 50%.
• Treated reservation as an exception to equality.

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975)

• Broached the idea of substantive equality.
• Held that reservations are not exceptions but part of equality of opportunity.
• Did not give a binding ruling on the 50% ceiling.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

• Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs.
• Affirmed that caste can be a criterion for identifying backwardness.
• Reaffirmed the 50% ceiling (with rare exceptions).
• Introduced the concept of ‘creamy layer’ exclusion for OBCs.
• Prohibited reservation in promotions for OBCs.

Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

Upheld SC/ST promotion quotas (77th, 81st, 82nd, 85th Amendments).

• Imposed conditions:
  • Quantifiable data of backwardness,
  • Inadequate representation,
  • Administrative efficiency (Art. 335) must be maintained.

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

• Upheld the 103rd Amendment (10% EWS reservation).
• Economic criteria valid basis for reservation.
• 50% ceiling is not inflexible; it applies mainly to caste-based quotas.

Sharing is caring!