The Hindu: Published on 04 September 2025.
Why in News?
Political debate has flared after Bihar’s opposition leader (Tejashwi Yadav) publicly proposed raising reservation to 85% if his alliance comes to power — a direct challenge to the long-standing judicial ceiling and a headline-grabbing political proposal.
Meanwhile, judicial and expert attention has focused on sub-categorisation and the ‘creamy layer’ debate (including petitions asking for a creamy-layer-style mechanism for SCs/STs and recent Supreme Court directions in cases such as State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh). These developments make legal limits and distributional fairness urgent topics.
Background — constitutional provisions & what they allow:
Articles 15 and 16 permit the State to make “special provisions” for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs — i.e., affirmative action (reservations) for equality of outcome/substantive equality as remedial measures. (This is the legal basis for reservations in education and public employment.)
At the Centre current vertical reservation percentages are commonly listed as OBC 27%, SC 15%, ST 7.5% and EWS 10%, giving a combined figure above 50% (note: state-level mixes vary). (User-supplied article and public reporting.)
What courts have said (short legal timeline):
M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962/63): the Court held reservations must be “within reasonable limits” and endorsed the idea that an excessive quota prejudices the community as a whole — language that has been read as supporting a 50% cap.
Indra Sawhney (1992, “Mandal” Bench): a 9-judge Bench recognized OBC reservations (27%) and reaffirmed the 50% ceiling, while introducing the concept of the creamy layer for OBCs (i.e., excluding the relatively well-off within OBCs). The Court allowed exceptions only in “extraordinary” situations.
Recent developments: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) opened room for sub-classification inside SC/ST categories and urged policy action on distributional fairness — signalling judicial willingness to address intra-category inequality.
Key issues at stake (concise):
Constitutional equality vs. corrective justice — formal equality (treating everyone the same) vs. substantive equality (correcting historical disadvantage). Courts have oscillated between viewing reservations as an exception and as a continuation of equality.
50% ceiling — legal limit from case law vs. political/demographic calls for higher quotas (Tamil Nadu precedent is often cited politically).
Within-category skew / sub-categorisation — evidence suggests a small fraction of sub-castes capture the large share of quota benefits; many sub-castes get little or no benefit. This raises fairness questions about whether expanding aggregate quota percentages helps the most marginalised.
Creamy-layer debate for SC/ST — whether better-off SC/ST persons should be excluded (like OBCs) to allow more marginalised members to benefit. Govt. policy and courts have been divided and cautious; political stakes are high.
Implementation gaps — unfilled reserved posts, carry-forward/backlogs, and weak skill/education pipelines mean simply raising percentages may not translate to uplift. (Discussed in policy literature and the article.)
Evidence: are benefits concentrated within sub-castes?
Multiple official commission reports and media analyses (Rohini Commission consultation papers and press reporting on its findings) have found high concentration: e.g., one circulation of the Rohini Commission / consultation data found ~97% of central OBC reserved jobs/admissions went to about 25% of OBC sub-castes; many sub-castes had zero representation. This is repeatedly cited in public debate.
Competing arguments — summary:
Arguments for raising quota beyond 50%:
Demographic justice: If backward groups form a large share of the population, higher quotas mirror social reality and can accelerate inclusion. (Advocates also want caste census data to fix numbers.)
Substantive equality: Treats reservations as a continuing guarantee to achieve real equality, not an exception.
Arguments against exceeding 50%:
Constitutional/legal constraint: Indra Sawhney/Balaji interpretive precedent limits vertical reservations to ~50% absent extraordinary justification.
Distributional inefficiency: Without sub-categorisation and remedial targeting, raising aggregate quotas simply concentrates benefits in already dominant sub-castes and risks political backlash.
Practical limits: Many reserved posts remain unfilled; public sector scale and youth aspirations mean quotas alone cannot meet employment needs.
Likely impacts (if quota were raised to, say, 85%):
Short term: political mobilisation and legal challenges — almost certain litigation invoking Indra Sawhney/Balaji precedents; administrative chaos if enacted without data and planning.
Distributional outcome uncertain: unless accompanied by sub-categorisation and anti-concentration measures, dominant sub-castes within categories may continue to capture most benefits.
Long term: potential for greater inclusion if paired with skill development, education investment, caste census–driven targeting and mechanisms to fill vacancies; otherwise risk of tokenism and resentment.
Practical, legally-sensitive way forward (policy options):
Wait for reliable data (caste census 2027) — use solid demographic/representation data before altering national ceilings.
Implement sub-categorisation inside OBCs (and studied sub-classification in SC/ST) — split categories so the most deprived sub-castes get priority; use Rohini Commission recommendations as starting point.
Consider two-tier schemes for SC/ST — prioritise the most marginalised within the category before extending benefits to relatively better-off members (the “two-tier” idea discussed in petitions and commentary).
Address creamy-layer & vacancy mechanics carefully — any exclusion rule must be sensitive to under-filling and to the historical injustice SC/ST face; the policy design must avoid creating long backlogs that get converted into unreserved seats.
Expand complementary measures — skilling, targeted scholarships, more seats, improvement in school pipeline — so reservation becomes an entry point rather than the only lever. (Consistent with mainstream policy advice and the article.)
Conclusion:
The debate pits two valid objectives: constitutional equality of opportunity (the legal tradition that limits quotas) and substantive corrective justice (which argues for stronger affirmative action). Courts to date have generally held to a 50% limit (Balaji → Indra Sawhney) except in exceptional or specially-legislated cases, but recent judgments and commission reports have emphasised sub-category fairness and redistribution within reserved categories.
Raising the headline quota (to 85% or similar) without data, sub-categorisation and implementation reforms risks perpetuating intra-category inequality and invites legal challenge. A more durable route is data-driven reform (caste census → sub-categorisation → two-tier targeting where required) plus investments in education and skill building — measures that actually extend benefits to the most marginalised.
