Social Justice Must Evolve with Society

India’s reservation policy was created to address a serious historical reality: large sections of society had suffered discrimination, social exclusion and denial of educational and economic opportunities for generations.

The objective of affirmative action was therefore legitimate and necessary — to create representation, provide opportunity and help disadvantaged communities move toward social and economic equality.

But a policy designed to correct inequality must also be periodically reviewed to determine whether it is reaching the people who genuinely need it, whether benefits are being distributed fairly, and whether the system remains compatible with equal opportunity, merit and national development.

More than seven decades after the Constitution came into force, India needs a serious, evidence-based and constitutional discussion on reservation reform.

This should not be a debate about removing support from disadvantaged citizens. It should be about making that support fairer, better targeted and more effective.

Nehru Warned Against Allowing Reservation to Undermine Merit

India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, expressed serious concerns about caste-based preference, particularly when it affected efficiency in public services.

In a letter to Chief Ministers dated 27 June 1961, Nehru wrote:

“I dislike any kind of reservation, more particularly in Services.”

He also referred approvingly to the view that assistance should be provided on economic considerations and not on caste.

Nehru argued that disadvantaged groups should receive strong educational opportunities, including technical education, but warned against policies that could lower standards or undermine administrative efficiency.

In another letter dated 4 July 1961, he argued that reservation should not come at the cost of merit, particularly in higher levels of public service and promotion.

These views do not mean that disadvantaged communities should be denied support. Rather, they highlight a question India still faces today:

How can we provide social justice without weakening merit, efficiency and equal opportunity?

IRRF believes these objectives are not contradictory. India can protect disadvantaged citizens while simultaneously protecting standards.

1990: The Mandal Commission Changed the Scale of Reservation

A major turning point came with implementation of recommendations of the Second Backward Classes Commission — commonly known as the Mandal Commission.

The Commission submitted its report in 1980. In August 1990, the Government of India issued an order providing 27% reservation in Central Government employment for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The policy was challenged before the Supreme Court. In the landmark Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992, the Court upheld the 27% OBC reservation while requiring exclusion of the socially advanced or “creamy layer.”

This fundamentally expanded the reservation framework.

At the Central Government level, the traditional reservation structure subsequently became broadly:

15% — Scheduled Castes
7.5% — Scheduled Tribes
27% — Other Backward Classes

Together, these amount to 49.5%.

The Supreme Court’s reservation jurisprudence has repeatedly recognised a general 50% ceiling, although constitutional developments and exceptional circumstances have added complexity to that principle.

Economic Disadvantage Has Now Been Constitutionally Recognised

Another major development occurred in 2019.

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced Articles 15(6) and 16(6), enabling reservation of up to 10% for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among citizens who are not covered by the existing SC, ST and OBC reservation systems.

This development is significant because it acknowledges an important reality:

Poverty and economic disadvantage also restrict opportunity.

A poor child from any community may face inadequate schooling, poor nutrition, lack of coaching, weak digital access, financial pressure and limited exposure.

If disadvantage is the justification for government assistance, economic circumstances cannot be ignored.

IRRF therefore believes the future reservation framework should give much greater importance to economic condition and genuine disadvantage.

Is Reservation Reaching All the People It Was Intended to Help?

One of the strongest arguments for reform comes from within the reservation system itself.

In 2017, the Government constituted the Justice G. Rohini Commission specifically to investigate the inequitable distribution of reservation benefits among communities included in the Central OBC List.

Its mandate included determining whether reservation benefits were being disproportionately distributed and developing a mechanism for sub-categorisation.

The Government itself subsequently acknowledged that there were communities within the Central OBC List that had not been able to obtain major benefits from the existing reservation system.

The Rohini Commission finally submitted its report to the President on 31 July 2023.

This raises a fundamental question:

If some communities repeatedly receive significant benefits while other eligible communities remain behind, is the system achieving genuine social justice?

Reservation should create mobility, not simply preserve a permanent category of entitlement.

The Problem of Repeated Benefits Across Generations and Stages

Another area requiring serious discussion is repeated access to reservation benefits.

Under the existing framework, depending on the applicable category and rules, a person may potentially benefit from reservation at different stages of education and employment, while subsequent generations of an eligible family may also remain within the reservation framework.

IRRF believes India should examine a different principle:

One Family — One Meaningful Reservation Opportunity

If government intervention successfully enables a family member to enter a major professional or higher educational pathway, the system should progressively prioritise another disadvantaged family that has never received such an opportunity.

For example, if a student receives a major reservation benefit for entry into higher education, IRRF proposes examining whether the same individual should again receive reservation advantages at every subsequent stage.

The purpose should be:

Lift one family → create mobility → extend the next opportunity to another disadvantaged family.

This would allow reservation benefits to spread more widely through society.

Reservation Cannot Become an Unlimited Political Instrument

Reservation is understandably an emotionally and politically sensitive issue.

Every attempt to reconsider quotas, eligibility or beneficiary categories can quickly become an electoral controversy.

This creates a danger that political