Why in news?
The long‑standing debate over the constitutional limit on caste reservations came back into focus in early September 2025. Some state governments and political parties are demanding higher quotas to reflect demographic realities. At the same time the Supreme Court issued notices on extending the “creamy layer” principle to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. These developments reignited discussions on whether the 50 per cent ceiling should be raised.
Historical background
During the framing of the Constitution, Dr B.R. Ambedkar and other leaders agreed that reservations should be a temporary corrective to historic discrimination rather than a permanent privilege. In 1962 the Supreme Court in Balaji v. State of Mysore said special provisions must be “within reasonable limits” and suggested that half of available seats was a fair upper boundary. Later judgments expanded or clarified this reasoning.
- 1975 – State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas: The court recognised that affirmative action is a continuation of equality rather than an exception. It pointed towards substantive equality but did not expressly remove the 50 per cent limit.
- 1992 – Indra Sawhney v. Union of India: A nine‑judge bench upheld the 27 per cent quota for Other Backward Classes while capping total reservations at 50 per cent, except under extraordinary circumstances. It also introduced the creamy‑layer concept for OBCs to ensure benefits reach the most deprived.
- 2022 – Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India: The court upheld a 10 per cent quota for economically weaker sections drawn from the general category, reasoning that the 50 per cent ceiling applies only to caste‑based reservations. This effectively allowed the overall share of reservations to exceed half in central government jobs and colleges.
Formal versus substantive equality
The argument for a strict cap comes from the idea of formal equality – the notion that the law should treat everyone identically. Under this view, reservations are seen as exceptions and should therefore be limited. On the other hand, advocates of substantive equality stress that historical and structural disadvantages require affirmative measures to create a level playing field. They argue that quotas are not exceptions but tools to achieve true equality, so a rigid numerical cap may undermine social justice.
Arguments for increasing the ceiling
- Demographic realities: Backward classes make up well over half of India’s population. Limiting their share of reserved seats to 50 per cent curbs proportional representation and may deepen feelings of exclusion.
- Political demands: Several state governments have legislated quotas above 50 per cent; examples include Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. Proponents argue that social realities vary across states and a uniform ceiling may not work for all.
- Uneven distribution of benefits: Studies by the Rohini Commission show that a small number of OBC sub‑castes corner most of the benefits. A higher quota combined with sub‑categorisation could help reach neglected groups.
- Recognising substantive equality: Judgments such as N.M. Thomas highlight that affirmative action is an assertion of equality. Removing or raising the cap would align with this broader understanding.
Arguments against increasing the ceiling
- Judicial precedent: The 50 per cent limit in Indra Sawhney has guided policy for over three decades. Opponents warn that breaching it without clear criteria could erode merit‑based selection and trigger legal challenges.
- Vacant seats: Government data show that a significant proportion of reserved posts remain unfilled due to poor implementation and lack of eligible candidates. Critics argue that focusing on filling existing quotas and addressing creamy‑layer issues would be more productive than raising the percentage.
- Risks to efficiency: Excessive quotas could, according to some, reduce competitiveness in public services and higher education if merit is not given due weight.
- Alternative reforms: Rather than raising the cap, reforms such as conducting a caste census, sub‑categorising OBC quotas, and addressing backlog vacancies could improve fairness without altering the ceiling.
Way forward
The debate over reservations reflects India’s attempt to balance social justice with efficiency. Policymakers could consider the following steps:
- Data‑driven policy: Undertake a nationwide caste census to provide accurate data for rational quota policies.
- Sub‑categorisation: Implement the Rohini Commission’s recommendations so that benefits are equitably shared among different OBC communities and the most marginalised sections of SCs and STs.
- Flexible ceilings: Allow states with exceptionally high proportions of backward classes to deviate from the 50 per cent benchmark, subject to judicial review.
- Economic uplift: Complement caste‑based reservations with investments in education, skill development, entrepreneurship and targeted welfare schemes so that social mobility does not rely solely on quotas.
- Balance equity and merit: Ensure that reservations remain a means of empowerment rather than a permanent entitlement, and that efficiency and competence are preserved in public institutions.
Ultimately, any revision of the reservation policy should be guided by empirical evidence and a commitment to both equality and national cohesion.