“Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action by the State… to ensure an all-inclusive march towards… an egalitarian society while counteracting inequalities,” ruled the Supreme Court. For decades, India has employed similar policies to help historically marginalised populations gain access to school, employment, and politics.
The Constitution allows the State to establish “special provisions for the advancement of any socially or educationally backward class… or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes” and reserve public posts for any backward class “not adequately represented”. In practice, this has translated into legally guaranteed quotas known as “reservations” for disadvantaged castes in government positions and colleges, as well as reserved seats in elected organisations. According to many, “India has a long history of affirmative action policies for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), which were later extended to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the 1990s.”
Limiting Reservation to First Generation: Ensuring Fairness in Affirmative Action
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Justice Pankaj Mithal argued that this remedy should not become a perpetual advantage for the same families. He stated that once a family benefits and “achieved higher status”, its descendants should not indefinitely take special seats. His own words were: “Reservation, if any, has to be limited only for the first generation or one generation.”
In other words, if a member of a backward community wins a government job or a college seat through reservation, the next generation will compete with everyone else. This notion is similar to the “creamy layer” criterion, which is already utilised for OBC quotas.
Limiting quotas to one generation would prevent affluent families from monopolising benefits within a community. Critics of unfettered quotas point out that more affluent SC/ST families frequently send numerous members to reserved postings, in contrast to many poorer families who continue to get no benefits. Introducing a generational cap or periodic review would free up seats for people who have never advanced through the system.
According to one study, eliminating the advanced segment “prevents their capture of benefits… improving reach to the most marginalised”. In practice, this means greater possibilities for children from the poorest homes, rather than benefits going down through generations of the same family.
Constitutional Mandates and Reservation Laws
The Indian Constitution specifically allows for caste-based quotas. Article 15(4) makes particular provisions for SC/ST and other backward classes, while Article 16(4) allows for the reservation of government posts for under-represented backward classes. As a result, current central policies allocate approximately 49.5 per cent of government employment and college seats to SCs, STs, and OBCs (15 per cent for SC, 7.5 per cent for ST, and 27 per cent for OBC). These quotas apply to all public-sector jobs, including universities and legislatures. (Some states go much further, such as Tamil Nadu, which reserves 69 per cent of seats, exceeding the 50 per cent cap.) In local administrations (village and city councils), constitutional amendments have also reserved seats for SC/ST members in proportion to their population, and women have been guaranteed one-third of all panchayat/municipal seats since 1994. The 73rd and 74th Amendments thus give a voice to disadvantaged groups in grassroots politics.
Over time, India has expanded affirmative action to include additional communities. In 2019, the Government passed the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which allows for reservations only on economic grounds. It introduced Clauses 15(6) and 16(6), which allow up to 10 per cent of jobs and college seats to be reserved for “Economically Weaker Sections” (EWS) who are not already classified as SC/ST/OBC. This 10 per cent EWS limit is “in addition to the existing reservations” and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2022-23. A split bench stated that the normal 50 per cent reservation cap (introduced in 1992) is “not inflexible” in doing so. The Court held that EWS quotas, which target poor upper-caste households, are constitutionally acceptable and broaden India’s affirmative action net beyond caste alone.
Targeting Caste, Class, Disability, and More
India’s quota system is still based on caste. According to studies, SC/ST quota beneficiaries come from poorer households and districts than general-category students. For example, one study discovered that after the 1993 implementation of OBC reservations, the average OBC student received an additional 0.8 years of education compared to earlier generations. These findings imply that quotas have increased educational achievement for backward castes. Similarly, political science research shows that reserving parliamentary seats for SCs/STs and women has resulted in significant poverty reductions and increased social spending in such regions.
Beyond caste and class, India has moved to expand quotas to other disadvantaged groups. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 requires a 4 per cent reserve of government jobs for people with baseline disabilities. (This is often divided into 1 per cent each for blindness, hearing impairment, locomotor difficulties, autism/intellectual disability, and so forth.) States are now implementing this; for example, Uttar Pradesh has announced a 4 per cent quota for disabled candidates in all government job openings. Education regulations also promote inclusion: the 2009 Right to Education Act mandates private schools to reserve 25 per cent of first-grade seats for disadvantaged (mostly low-income or rural) children, providing them with free education through eighth grade. India’s Constitution also protects minority rights. Articles 29-30 protect the cultural and educational rights of religious and linguistic minorities, and institutions run by minorities can even set their own admission standards. For example, the State provides financial support to help minorities establish schools and scholarships.
However, there are no separate religious quotas at the national level. The Supreme Court and top scholars have consistently said that India’s reservation policy is based on caste and class, not faith. The RSS (a national ideological entity) stated in 2025 that “the Constitution does not allow religion-based quota”, and courts have already rejected attempts to reserve positions specifically for Muslims. In actuality, some disadvantaged Muslim communities benefit indirectly: many “OBC” lists include Muslim castes, and certain states, like Karnataka and Andhra, have attempted sub-quotas under OBC for Muslims (subject to judicial challenges). Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims continue to be excluded from the SC/ST classifications, which is an ongoing source of grievance.
Despite living in comparable poverty, they are not granted SC status by law. According to a 2021 IndiaSpend article, approximately 47 per cent of urban Dalit Muslims live in poverty, which is higher than the percentage for Hindu Dalits, despite the fact that their groups do not have access to SC quotas. The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a plea for “religion-neutral” reservation, which would benefit Dalits of all religions. This discussion reveals a gap: caste is not religious; thus, any poor Dalit (regardless of faith) should qualify - yet in fact, official lists omit Christians and Muslims, leaving these groups out of affirmative action.
Progress and Persistent Challenges
India’s reservation system has certainly improved representation of historically marginalised groups. Millions of SC/ST and OBC students have gained access to universities and civil services that they would not have had without quotas. Political parties frequently draw from reserved constituencies and employ leaders from particular areas. Governments have supported affirmative action initiatives to help underprivileged groups in accordance with the constitutional direction (Article 46). According to one assessment, election-reserved SC/ST seats experienced lower poverty rates and better social results for their residents,
demonstrating that political representation can bring benefits. However, India still “lags in creating an inclusive scene”. Many critics believe that the system excludes the poorest among its targets. For example, the so-called “creamy layer” regulation bans wealthy OBC individuals from quotas, whilst poor upper-caste inhabitants can only receive assistance under the new EWS quota, which cannot benefit the poorest SC/ST/OBC households. The EWS plan itself was controversial: opponents argue that it completely excludes SC/ST/OBC, essentially creating a “rich upper-caste” quota, in their opinion.
Others are concerned that quotas alone will not assure equal access to private-sector jobs or higher education, where reservations do not apply. Social discrimination and educational inequalities continue to hamper true equality in the workplace and at colleges. Implementation gaps also exist in public jobs. Research demonstrates that even when SC/ST job quotas exist, many positions go empty for years due to high qualification requirements or institutional resistance. In the past, few high-ranking positions were filled with reservations, and progress has been slow. As a scholar observed in 2019, large-scale protests against Mandal-era quotas reflected “massive debates and controversies” over their efficiency. Today, there are calls for sub-quotas inside SC/OBC groups, quotas in private firms, and stricter implementation of existing legislation. Women, who account for half of the population, are likewise under-represented: the long-delayed Women’s Reservation Bill (approved by Parliament in 2023), which provides one-third of legislative seats for women, is currently awaiting final enactment.
India has established a comprehensive affirmative action structure that is legally binding and has grown in recent years. Caste quotas, the new EWS quota, disability reservations, and required local seats for women have all contributed to increased inclusiveness. However, many underprivileged people continue to slide between the cracks. A fully inclusive strategy would ensure that all underprivileged or marginalised people receive benefits, regardless of caste or class, while simultaneously addressing societal stereotypes and opportunity disparities. As courts and
policymakers adjust India’s quotas, the task continues to strike a balance between broad access and social justice, bringing the promise of equality closer to reality for all.
The article is written by Ms Hemangi Sinha, Project Head at WIF, who has been actively involved in research and policy writing on social equity and Governance. It is co-authored by Ms Sakshi Chaudhary, her researcher, who has contributed to the analysis and drafting of the piece
