Why is it in the news?
- The recent Patna High Court decision to strike down the raised reservations for marginalized communities in employment and education highlights the importance of adhering to the 50% cap on total reservations.
- The court invalidated the Nitish Kumar administration’s move to amend the quota law, increasing backward classes’ reservation from 12% to 18%, Extremely Backward Communities (EBC) from 18% to 25%, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from 16% to 20% and 1% to 2%, respectively, pushing the total reservation level to 65%.
- By enforcing established legal limits, the court dealt a significant setback to Bihar’s plans to expand its affirmative action initiatives based on caste demographics.
| · Affirmative action is a policy to boost opportunities for marginalized groups, such as giving preferences in education and jobs, like India’s reservations system, aiming to correct past discrimination and foster diversity.
Constitutional Safeguards for Affirmative Action: · Guaranteeing Equality: o Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution ensure social justice by promoting equality and allowing affirmative action in education and public employment. · Special Provisions for Backward Classes: o The Constitution provides special provisions for the advancement of OBCs, SCs, and STs, upheld by the 1992 Indra Sawhney case which confirmed a 27% reservation for OBCs, with total reservations capped at 50%. · Creamy Layer Exclusion: o Courts mandate excluding affluent OBC individuals, currently defined as those earning above ₹8 lakh annually, to ensure equitable distribution of benefits. · EWS Reservation: o The Janhit Abhiyan case in 2022 validated a 10% quota for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) to promote social inclusivity. · Muslim Reservation: o Karnataka implements a 4% sub-quota for Muslims under the OBC category, initially redistributed among Hindu OBCs and subsequently upheld by the courts. |
More about the news
- Despite the court’s firm stance on reservation ceilings, it dismissed the State’s argument for special circumstances justifying the enhanced quotas.
- While recognizing the allowance for exceeding the quota in extraordinary situations as per the Indra Sawhney verdict, the court narrowly interpreted this exception, focusing mainly on geographical remoteness as a qualifying factor. This restrictive approach seems to overlook the broader socio-economic challenges faced by backward states like Bihar, hindering their ability to address historical injustices through increased representation.
| Indra Sawhney Case:
· The Indra Sawhney Case, known as the Mandal Commission case, is a pivotal legal decision in India that shaped affirmative action policies. · In 1992, a nine-judge Supreme Court bench addressed the implementation of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs. · This landmark ruling profoundly influenced debates on equality, social justice, and the extent of reservation benefits in India. · The Supreme Court ruled that reservations should not exceed 50%, deeming this limit fair and reasonable, and allowing for exceptions in extraordinary circumstances without specifying further justification. |
- Further, the court’s emphasis on adhering strictly to reservation limits raises concerns about the thoroughness of the survey that informed the enhanced quotas. While adjustments based on progress are warranted, blanket restrictions on expanding representation for marginalized sections risk perpetuating inequities.
- Instead, a nuanced approach that balances the need for affirmative action with legal constraints can ensure a fair and effective reservation policy that promotes inclusivity without breaching established boundaries.
