Reservations and the Constitution: Navigating the Thin Line Between Equity and Equality

Introduction

The Indian Constitution enshrines equality as a fundamental value, yet it acknowledges that uniform treatment alone cannot rectify deep-rooted social injustices. Article 14 deals with both equality and equity, although there is a thin line of difference. This article is to distinguish the thin line of difference between the two.

The 1947’s post Independent India faced many challenges, one among them was the caste system, in whose name some communities had excess while others barely had anything to feed their stomach. To remove this problem, the constitutional framers thought of the concept of reservation to bring them equal to the mainstream society. Another challenge was the practice of untouchability, as it prohibited the lower caste people from entering into a job of a higher post, even though they had the required qualifications. Thus, the reservation guaranteed that they shall not be denied employment on the sole basis of caste. 

Constitutional Provisions on Reservation

Reservation was provided specially to uplift Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backwards Classes (OBCs). These provisions are grounded in Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4), which empower the State to take special measures for the advancement of socially and educationally backwards groups. Article 16(4A) extends this to promotions for SCs and STs, while Articles 15(6) and 16(6), introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, allow for a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), marking a shift toward economic criteria irrespective of caste.

Equality vs. Equity in the Constitution

The Constitution also guarantees formal equality through Articles 14, 15(1), and 16(1), which ensure equal treatment before the law and prohibit discrimination. However, the Constitution implies a deeper concept—equity—through its affirmative action clauses. Equity seeks to achieve real, substantive equality by addressing the different starting points of various social groups. In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1), the Supreme Court recognized this distinction, observing that treating unequals equally can perpetuate injustice.

The tension between equality and equity arises in applying constitutional provisions—equality seeks uniform treatment, while equity demands targeted support for the disadvantaged. Critics view reservations as anti-merit and divisive, but supporters argue they are essential for achieving true social justice by addressing historical exclusion and structural inequality.(2)

Judicial Interpretation

This was addressed in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (3), where the Court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs, introduced the concept of the creamy layer to exclude the more advanced among them, and capped total reservations at 50%. In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (4), the Court upheld reservation in promotions for SCs and STs but mandated that the State collect quantifiable data to justify such measures. Later, in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (5), the creamy layer principle was extended to SCs and STs in the context of promotions. Most recently, in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (6), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the EWS quota despite breaching the 50% cap, recognizing economic disadvantage as a legitimate basis for affirmative action.

Challenges

Despite its noble objectives, the reservation system faces several challenges. The most prominent is the unequal distribution of benefits, with the creamy layer within backward classes often monopolizing access, leaving the poorest behind. Another concern is the apparent permanence of a scheme originally intended to be temporary. The EWS quota, while progressive in theory, excludes historically marginalized castes and relies solely on economic indicators, potentially overlooking social discrimination. Additionally, the absence of reliable socio-economic data limits the effectiveness and fairness of policy decisions. Critics also argue that reservations in promotions may undermine administrative efficiency, and the politicization of reservation demands risks reducing it to a vote-bank strategy.(7)

Suggestions

A data-driven approach should replace blanket quotas, guided by regular socio-economic surveys. Applying the creamy layer rule uniformly and making reservations time-bound can prevent misuse. Emphasizing education, skill development, and economic support will empower marginalized groups and gradually reduce dependence on quotas, promoting true inclusion and equal opportunity.

Conclusion

Reservations are vital for achieving substantive equality but must remain dynamic, evidence-based, and periodically reviewed. They should empower the truly disadvantaged and, alongside developmental policies, evolve from corrective tools into lasting mechanisms for inclusion, opportunity, and social justice.

References  

1. State of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas  AIR 1976 SC 490

2. Dr. Shailendra Nath Jha, Right to equality and reservation policy under the constitution of India: A case study, International Journal of Academic Studies

3. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217

4. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212

5. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396

6. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2023) 1 SCC 1

7. Gautam Bhatia, Reservations, Equality and the Constitution – I: Origins, Contemporary Constitutional Law, 

DISCLAIMER- This article has been submitted by Sudeshna Mondal, trainee under the LLL Legal Training Program. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.