THE CONTEXT: The Indian Constitution’s promise of social justice allows the state to make special provisions for the underprivileged. However, judicial responses to reservation policies often prioritize “merit” and “efficiency in administration” over proportional representation. This tension is evident in the Patna High Court judgment striking down Bihar’s 65 percent reservation policy.
THE ISSUES:
- Proportionate Representation vs. Adequate Representation: The Patna High Court’s judgment of Bihar’s 65% reservation policy highlights the distinction between “proportionate representation” and “adequate representation.” The court noted that the term “proportionate” is alien to Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, which use the term “inadequacy of representation.” This distinction was emphasized in the landmark case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), where the Supreme Court observed that “adequate representation cannot be read as proportionate representation.” The court’s decision underscores that while the proportion of the population of backward classes is relevant, it does not justify proportionate reservations.
- Judicial Scrutiny and the 50% Ceiling: The judiciary has consistently applied the “strict scrutiny” doctrine to reservation policies, often nullifying expansions that breach the 50% ceiling. This principle was first established in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962) and reaffirmed in subsequent cases like Devadasan v. Union of India (1964), N.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala (1976), and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). The Patna High Court’s recent judgment aligns with this jurisprudence, rejecting Bihar’s attempt to increase reservations beyond the 50% limit, citing the need to maintain equality and prevent reverse discrimination.
- Efficiency and Merit: The argument that reservations compromise “efficiency in administration” and “merit” has been a recurring theme in judicial decisions. The Patna High Court echoed this concern, stating that “merit… cannot be sacrificed completely”. However, this perspective has been challenged by various judgments. Justice Chinnappa Reddy in Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1985) criticized the assumption that reserved category employees are less efficient, calling it a “vicious assumption.” Justice Chandrachud in B.K. Pavitra II (2019) further argued for redefining merit in terms of social good and inclusivity.
- Economic Criteria and EWS Reservations: The introduction of reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, raised questions about applying the 50% ceiling. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) upheld the EWS quota, distinguishing it from reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs. This decision has been seen as a departure from the strict adherence to the 50% rule, highlighting the evolving nature of reservation policies.
- Role of Caste Surveys and Expert Consultation: The Patna High Court emphasized the need for a thorough analysis and expert consultation before implementing reservation policies based on caste surveys. The court criticized the Bihar government for relying solely on the caste survey without adequate analysis. This insistence on expert input aligns with the precedent set in Indra Sawhney, where the Supreme Court referred to consultations with sociologists and other experts.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Revisiting the 50% Reservation Cap: Justice Chinnappa Reddy in Vasanth Kumar (1985) criticized the rigid application of the 50% cap, arguing that efficiency should not be presumed to be compromised by reservations. Justice Chandrachud in B K Pavitra II (2019) emphasized redefining merit regarding social good and inclusivity. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) acknowledged that the 50% limit need not be strictly adhered to in far-flung, remote, or out-of-the-mainstream areas of national life. Article 16(4) allows the state to make provisions for reserving appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens who are not adequately represented in the services under the state.
- Periodic Review and Data-Driven Approach: The Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) highlighted the need for reliable data to determine the inadequacy of representation. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) required states to provide quantifiable data to justify promotion reservations. Article 340 empowers the President to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes and make recommendations.
- Incorporating Economic Criteria: Justice B.M. Trivedi in the EWS reservation case (2022) suggested that reservations should have a time limit and be periodically reviewed to ensure they serve their intended purpose. The Supreme Court upheld the EWS reservation in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), recognizing the need to address economic disparities. Articles 15(6) and 16(6) provide reservations for economically weaker sections in educational institutions and public employment, respectively.
- Enhancing Educational and Skill Development Programs: Focus on improving the quality of education and skill development programs for marginalized communities to reduce the need for reservations over time. The Supreme Court, in various judgments, has emphasized the importance of education in achieving social justice and reducing inequalities. Article 46 directs the state to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of society, particularly the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
- Ensuring Transparency and Accountability: Establish transparent mechanisms for implementing and monitoring reservation policies to prevent misuse and ensure they reach the intended beneficiaries. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) emphasized the need for a transparent and accountable system to ensure reservations serve their intended purpose. Article 335 states that the claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be considered consistently with the maintenance of efficiency in administration.
- Temporary Nature of Reservations: The constitutional provisions for reservations were intended as temporary measures to address historical injustices and social inequalities. Article 16(4) allows for reservations in public employment for backward classes that are not adequately represented, while Article 15(4) permits special provisions for advancing socially and educationally backward classes. The judiciary has reiterated that reservations should not be permanent and must be periodically reviewed to ensure they do not perpetuate caste divisions or create vested interests.
THE CONCLUSION:
The Patna High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s consistent stance on maintaining a 50 percent reservation ceiling and prioritizing merit. These rulings challenge the expansion of reservations based on caste surveys and highlight the ongoing debate over the balance between social justice and administrative efficiency.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 Development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable, by its nature, are discriminatory in approach. Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer 2023
Q.2 Constitutional Morality’ is rooted in the Constitution and founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ with the help of relevant judicial decisions. 2021
Q.3 Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSCJ) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine 2018
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 Discuss the constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations related to reservation policies in India. Critically analyze the recent Patna High Court judgment striking down the 65% reservation in Bihar, considering the arguments of merit, efficiency, and social justice.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word