The reservation policy in India is one of the most significant and contentious features of its socio-legal system. Designed as an instrument of social justice, it seeks to uplift historically disadvantaged communities by ensuring their adequate representation in education, employment, and politics. Yet, it has simultaneously sparked debates over meritocracy, efficiency, and fairness. At its core lies a tension between two constitutional ideals—equality of opportunity and substantive justice on the one hand, and the recognition of merit and talent on the other.
The origins of reservation can be traced back to colonial India, when British policies introduced quotas in education and employment for certain castes. After Independence, the Constituent Assembly recognized the entrenched social inequalities rooted in caste hierarchies, untouchability, and systemic exclusion. While the Constitution enshrined equality before the law under Article 14, it also allowed for affirmative action through Articles 15(4) and 16(4), empowering the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution, viewed reservations as a temporary measure to ensure social justice until historically oppressed communities could compete on an equal footing.
Over the years, the scope of reservation expanded. Landmark cases like M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) set early limits on quotas, while the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), while capping total reservations at 50%, barring exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney also introduced the concept of the “creamy layer,” excluding socially advanced members of backward classes from reservation benefits. More recently, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019) introduced 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of upper castes, upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022). These developments show that reservation has evolved from being caste-centric to encompassing economic disadvantage, reflecting the dynamic nature of equality debates in India.
The supporters of reservation argue that merit cannot be understood in isolation from social conditions. Historical oppression, discrimination, and lack of access to education and resources have created structural inequalities that hinder the disadvantaged from competing on equal terms. For them, reservation is not a dilution of merit but a way to create a level playing field by compensating for centuries of exclusion. Substantive equality, rather than formal equality, requires affirmative action to uplift marginalized groups, ensuring their participation in governance, professions, and nation-building. In this sense, reservation strengthens democracy by making institutions more inclusive and representative of India’s diverse social fabric.
On the other hand, critics contend that reservation undermines meritocracy by privileging caste or community over competence. They argue that excessive reliance on quotas can compromise efficiency in institutions, create resentment among non-reserved categories, and perpetuate caste identities instead of eliminating them. Critics also highlight the tendency of reservation benefits to be cornered by relatively well-off sections within disadvantaged groups, leaving the poorest and most marginalized still deprived. Furthermore, the expansion of reservations to economically weaker sections of forward castes raises concerns about whether the original purpose of addressing historical injustice is being diluted.
The debate thus reflects a clash between two visions of justice. The meritocratic vision emphasizes individual talent, hard work, and efficiency, arguing that opportunities should be allocated purely on performance. The egalitarian vision insists that true merit can only emerge when everyone begins from an equal starting point, which is currently not the case in India due to deeply embedded social hierarchies. The Constitution itself attempts to balance these competing concerns by guaranteeing equality while allowing affirmative action as an exception to the rule of equal opportunity.
In practice, the challenge lies in ensuring that reservation policies achieve their intended purpose without becoming a tool of political populism or fostering dependency. Many scholars suggest a more nuanced approach—periodic review of reservation policies, better targeting of benefits through economic and social indicators, and complementing reservations with broader reforms in education, healthcare, and rural development. Strengthening public institutions, ensuring quality education for all, and empowering the most marginalized within disadvantaged groups are critical steps toward reconciling equality with meritocracy.
In conclusion, the reservation policy in India represents a continuing struggle to balance competing ideals of justice. While it has played a vital role in empowering historically oppressed communities, it has also raised difficult questions about fairness, efficiency, and the meaning of merit. The way forward is not to abandon reservations but to refine and reform them, ensuring they remain instruments of social justice while fostering genuine equality of opportunity. Only then can India reconcile the twin goals of social justice and meritocracy in its pursuit of a truly egalitarian society.
