Why India Needs to Reform Its Reservation Policy
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 parties may increasingly treat reservation promises as instruments of vote-bank mobilisation rather than as carefully measured social policy.
Social justice policy should not be determined by which political group can promise the largest quota.
It should be determined through:
Data • Need • Social disadvantage • Economic condition • Outcomes • Constitutional principles
India needs an independent and transparent mechanism for periodically measuring whether reservation is actually improving the lives of the most disadvantaged citizens.
Merit and Social Justice Must Coexist
IRRF rejects the argument that India must choose either merit or social justice.
India needs both.
A student from a deeply disadvantaged background may require additional support to reach the starting line. Government should provide that support through excellent schools, scholarships, nutrition, digital access, coaching and financial assistance.
But in institutions where extremely high technical competence is essential — engineering, medicine, scientific research, advanced technology and critical public services — differences in qualifying standards should not become so wide that institutional quality itself is affected.
IRRF therefore proposes that for higher technical institutions and competitive public employment, the difference between the qualifying/cutoff standard applicable to the Open Category and reserved categories should not exceed 25%.
The objective is neither exclusion nor discrimination.
The objective is to create a reasonable balance between:
Opportunity + Support + Merit + Institutional Excellence
Education Must Become the First Instrument of Equality
Reservation treats inequality after it has already developed.
Quality education attacks inequality at its source.
A child studying in a poorly staffed rural school without laboratories, computers, qualified teachers or basic infrastructure cannot realistically compete with a student who has received world-class private education.
Simply giving the first child a lower cutoff years later cannot permanently solve that inequality.
India needs to invest much more aggressively in Primary and Junior Education.
Government schools should be transformed into modern institutions with standards comparable to successful public models such as Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas.
Every child — regardless of caste, religion or family income — should have access to:
- Qualified teachers
- Modern classrooms
- Science laboratories
- Computers and digital learning
- Libraries
- Sports facilities
- Clean toilets and drinking water
- English and communication skills
- Mathematics and scientific education
- Career guidance
- Technology exposure
The ultimate goal of reform should be to reduce the circumstances that make reservation necessary.
Equal education is the strongest foundation for equal opportunity.
What IRRF Global Proposes
IRRF Global believes reservation should continue to protect genuinely disadvantaged citizens, but the system requires structural reform.
1. Maximum 50% Overall Reservation
Total reservation should ordinarily not exceed 50%, preserving meaningful space for open competition.
2. Greater Emphasis on Economic and Genuine Disadvantage
Economic condition, educational deprivation, family circumstances, geographic disadvantage and social hardship should become major determinants of eligibility.
3. One Family — One-Time Meaningful Benefit
Reservation should create upward mobility and then progressively move opportunities toward families that have never received meaningful support.
4. Reasonable Merit Difference
For higher technical education and competitive public employment, IRRF proposes that the qualifying/cutoff difference between Open Category and reserved categories should not exceed 25%.
5. Regular Beneficiary Review
Eligibility should be periodically reassessed using reliable economic, educational and social data.
Families that have achieved substantial economic and educational advancement should gradually give way to families that remain genuinely disadvantaged.
6. Education Before Reservation
India must dramatically improve government education — particularly Primary and Junior schooling — so that every child receives a genuine opportunity to compete.
Reform Is Not Abolition
Reservation reform should not become a conflict between General, OBC, SC or ST citizens.
India cannot build its future by turning communities against one another.
The real debate should be:
Who genuinely needs assistance? Is assistance reaching them? Has a beneficiary family achieved mobility? Are disadvantaged families still being left behind? Are educational standards improving? Is merit being reasonably protected? Is reservation reducing inequality or merely managing it permanently?
A policy created for social justice must itself remain capable of reform.
India has changed enormously since 1950.
Its economy has changed. Its education system has changed. Its population has changed. Its professions have changed. Its technology has changed. And the nature of economic opportunity has changed.
Public policy must also evolve.
India does not need less social justice.
India needs better social justice.
A system where:
The genuinely poor receive support. The historically disadvantaged receive opportunity. Families move upward rather than remain permanently dependent. Merit receives recognition. Every child receives quality education. And opportunity progressively becomes independent of birth.
That is the reservation reform India should now be willing to debate.
IRRF Global
International Reservation Reform Forum
Reservation Reform • Equal Education • Equal Opportunity