Menu

ANALYSING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Publications, Research paper

ABSTRACT

This study explores the complex and polarizing issue of caste-based reservations in Indian higher education from a constitutional standpoint. For decades, these reservations have been a significant and controversial policy in India, designed to rectify historical social injustices and disparities. The primary objective of this paper is to critically evaluate the constitutional validity of these reservations, considering the principles of equality, affirmative action, and social justice embedded in the Indian Constitution. Employing an interdisciplinary approach that integrates constitutional law with sociological, historical, and policy perspectives, the research analyzes key constitutional provisions, including Articles 15, 46, and 335, to assess whether caste-based reservations align with the vision of a fair and equitable society envisioned by the Constitution’s framers. Furthermore, the paper investigates the efficacy of these reservations in fostering social inclusion and narrowing educational gaps. Through an in-depth analysis of significant judicial rulings, legislative developments, and empirical data, the study evaluates the impact of caste-based reservations on access to higher education, institutional diversity, and the socio-economic progress of marginalized communities. It also addresses the challenges and critiques of these policies, such as allegations of reverse discrimination and issues related to the inclusion of the creamy layer.

INTRODUCTION

Caste-based reservations in higher education institutions have long been a contentious matter in India. Supporters contend that they serve as a crucial means to redress the historical hardships experienced by marginalized communities, while opponents perceive them as biased and in conflict with the constitutional concept of equality. The Indian Constitution recognizes the need for special provisions to uplift socially and educationally backward classes, as outlined in Article 15(4) and Article 16(4). The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of these reservations, emphasizing their temporary nature, proportionality, and subject to periodic review. Nevertheless, the debate persists. Opponents argue that reservations perpetuate caste divisions and disadvantage meritorious students from general categories. Supporters argue that they create equal educational opportunities for communities that have faced historical disadvantages. This ongoing discourse requires careful consideration, given the compelling arguments on both sides. This paper aims to scrutinize the constitutional validity of caste-based reservations in higher education, examining relevant constitutional provisions, Supreme Court rulings, and scholarly viewpoints. It will also assess the pros and cons of reservations and their impact on educational equity. The goal is to provide a comprehensive and impartial analysis to inform policymakers and the public on this significant issue.

KEYWORDS : Caste-based reservations, Social injustices, Constitutional legitimacy, Equality, Social inclusion, Educational disparities, Creamy layer, Article 15(4) and Article 16(4).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Caste-based reservations in higher education have been extensively studied across legal, sociological, and policy perspectives. Marc Galanter’s “Competing Equalities” (1984) frames reservations as a constitutional mechanism to address systemic discrimination, balancing formal and substantive equality. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar advocated reservations to uplift marginalized communities, a vision echoed in modern scholarship. The Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment upheld reservations, introducing the creamy layer exclusion and 50% cap to balance equity and efficiency.

Sociologically, Christophe Jaffrelot notes reservations have fostered a Dalit middle class, though benefits often miss the most marginalized. Ashwini Deshpande’s 2020 research shows increased enrollment and retention for reserved category students but highlights issues like academic discrimination and dropouts. Legal scholars like Rajeev Dhavan and Upendra Baxi debate reservations’ alignment with Article 14’s equality principle, with Dhavan urging periodic reassessment and Baxi viewing them as constitutionally transformative.

Government reports, including the Sachar Committee (2006), advocate extending benefits to minorities and economically disadvantaged groups, emphasizing intersectionality. Literature broadly supports reservations’ constitutional legitimacy for social justice but calls for reforms to balance group rights, individual merit, and institutional excellence in India’s diverse democracy.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

The study primarily relies on secondary sources to explore the intersection of constitutional principles, judicial interpretations, and the socio-political impact of reservations. To achieve a comprehensive understanding of the issue, the research involved an extensive literature review of scholarly articles, academic journals, books by constitutional experts, and commentaries on landmark Supreme Court judgments. The writings of eminent scholars such as Upendra Baxi, Marc Galanter, Yogendra Yadav, and others were examined to understand the theoretical and constitutional foundations of affirmative action in India.

In addition, government reports and official data such as statistics from the Ministry of Education, UGC reports, and data from the National Sample Survey (NSS) have been consulted to assess the real-world outcomes of reservation policies in terms of educational access, enrollment, and representation of marginalized communities. News articles and opinion pieces from reputed national publications were also reviewed to incorporate recent developments, public discourse, and political debates surrounding caste-based reservations. Moreover, survey reports and case studies available through public policy think tanks and research institutes were used to evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of existing policies.

This multidisciplinary approach drawing from constitutional law, sociology, public policy, and political science enables the paper to analyze the issue from both normative and empirical perspectives. The methodology supports a critical yet balanced examination of whether caste-based reservations align with the Indian Constitution’s vision of equality and social justice.

OBJECTIVES OF THIS RESEARCH 

  • To investigate the historical background and development of caste-based reservations in Indian higher education institutions.
  • To evaluate the effects of caste-based reservations on enhancing access to higher education for historically disadvantaged groups.
  • To examine the constitutional framework governing reservations and affirmative action, particularly Articles 15(4) and 16(4), and their judicial interpretations.
  • To analyze the legal disputes and criticisms surrounding caste-based reservations in higher education, including debates over meritocracy and equality.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN INDIA

The concept of reservation policies in India traces its origins to 1882, initiated by William Hunter and Jyotirao Phule, with the aim of tackling issues related to the caste system and untouchability. The contemporary reservation framework, however, was formalized in 1933 through the ‘Communal Award’ announced by British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald. This policy established separate electorates for various communities, including Europeans, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and Dalits. Following the Poona Pact on September 24, 1932, between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a unified Hindu electorate was agreed upon with reserved seats for the depressed classes. After India’s independence in 1947, the Constitution’s framers acknowledged the necessity to address caste-based social discrimination. Consequently, the Indian Constitution included provisions for reservations, initially set for a 10-year period and limited to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Over time, the reservation system expanded significantly. In 1991, Other Backward Classes (OBCs) were included in the reservation framework based on the Mandal Commission’s recommendations. In 2007, 15% of All India Quota seats were reserved for SCs and 7.5% for STs. On January 14, 2019, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) within the general category, supplementing the existing 50% reservation for SC/ST/OBC groups. Additionally, on July 29, 2021, the Government of India announced a 27% reservation for OBCs and a 10% reservation for EWS in the All India Quota Scheme for undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental programs, effective from the 2021-22 academic year.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESERVATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDIA

The Constitution of India provides for reservation of seats in government services and educational institutions for certain groups of people who have been historically disadvantaged. These groups include the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The constitutional provisions for reservation are found in Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 46 of the Constitution.

Article 15(4) : states that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them, but nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Article 16(4) : states that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.

Article 46 : states that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.

The constitutional provisions for reservation have been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India in a number of cases. The Court has held that reservation is a valid means of achieving the constitutional goal of social justice. However, the Court has also imposed certain restrictions on the use of reservation. For example, the Court has held that reservation must be temporary and must be reviewed periodically. The Court has also held that the extent of reservation must be reasonable and must not exceed 50% of the total seats.

SC/ST Reservation 

SC individuals receive a 15% job and higher education quota, while ST individuals receive a 7.5% quota. Reservation applies to both direct recruitment and promotions for SC/ST categories under Article 16(4A). Unlike some other reservations, there is no “creamy layer” concept for SC/ST, meaning that regardless of their parents’ income or government positions, children of SC/ST parents are eligible for SC/ST reservation benefits.

OBC Reservation

The OBC reservation, established following the Mandal Commission Report in 1991, allocates a 27% quota in government jobs and higher education. However, a ‘creamy layer’ concept is applied to OBC reservation. This means that only those within the OBC category who fall under the Non-Creamy Layer criteria are eligible for OBC reservation benefits. The creamy layer concept considers income and social status to exclude more privileged members of the OBC community, ensuring that reservation benefits are directed to those who genuinely need them and preventing their extension to subsequent generations.

EWS Reservation

The Indian Central Government introduced a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) within the General Category for government jobs and educational institutions through the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act of 2019. Several key legislative measures have shaped the reservation policies for educational institutions in India, including:

  1. Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005: This amendment added clause (5) to Article 15, enabling the state to create special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs) concerning admissions to educational institutions.
  2. Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006: This legislation mandates seat reservations in central educational institutions for SCs, STs, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
  3. Maharashtra’s Reservation in Admission to Private Educational Institutions Act, 2008: This Act enforces seat reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private educational institutions within Maharashtra.
  4. Karnataka’s Reservation in Admission to Private Unaided Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2017: This Act provides for seat reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private unaided professional educational institutions in Karnataka.
  5. Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019: This amendment introduced clauses (6) to Articles 15 and 16, allowing the state to provide reservations for EWS in government jobs and educational institutions.

These legislative changes have significantly broadened the framework of reservation policies, extending their applicability to private institutions and introducing provisions for economically disadvantaged groups.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND MERITOCRACY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN ACCESSIBILITY AND EXCELLENCE.

India’s reservation system, established to rectify historical injustices and advance social equality, has ignited a persistent debate surrounding the equilibrium between affirmative action and meritocracy within higher education. This policy designates a portion of seats in educational institutions for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), offering them opportunities that were historically denied. Affirmative action has played a pivotal role in enhancing accessibility by bridging representation gaps. However, it coexists with meritocracy, which advocates admission based exclusively on academic prowess. Achieving a delicate balance between these two paradigms is a multifaceted endeavor. 

The reservation system acknowledges the imperative of inclusive growth but occasionally faces criticism for potentially compromising academic excellence. Conversely, meritocracy, while emphasizing excellence, can inadvertently perpetuate disparities. To navigate this intricate landscape, India must consider several factors. Firstly, it is crucial to regularly review and revise reservation policies to align with evolving social dynamics. Secondly, nurturing a holistic admissions approach that evaluates both academic achievements and socio-economic backgrounds is imperative. This strategy ensures that excellence remains a priority without sacrificing inclusivity. Transparency in the admission process is another critical facet, as it eradicates suspicions of bias and fosters fairness within the system. Additionally, promoting constructive dialogue and informed discussions is essential to identify common ground between proponents of affirmative action and meritocracy. India faces the challenge of preserving a delicate equilibrium that upholds both accessibility and excellence. The reservation system, as a manifestation of affirmative action, remains a vital tool in this pursuit, contingent on its seamless integration with meritocratic principles. The Indian reservation system in higher education epitomizes the ongoing endeavor to strike a harmonious balance between affirmative action and meritocracy. This equilibrium is indispensable for cultivating a more equitable and academically robust educational landscape in India.

CASE LAWS

THE STATE OF MADRAS V. CHAMPAKAM DORAIRAJAN (1951)

AIR 1951 SC 226

  • The landmark case of The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) addressed caste-based reservations in Indian educational institutions. The case originated when Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin woman, was refused admission to Madras Medical College due to a government policy reserving seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Backward Classes (BCs). 
  • Dorairajan contested this policy in the High Court, which invalidated it. The State of Madras appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the High Court’s ruling, prioritizing Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles of State Policy. The Court held that caste-based reservations were not essential for the educational progress of SCs, STs, and BCs. 
  • This ruling prompted the First Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Clause 4 to Article 15, enabling reservations for SCs, STs, and socially and educationally backward classes. Though later overturned, this case remains a cornerstone in India’s reservation history, highlighting the primacy of Fundamental Rights and influencing ongoing reservation debates.

INDIRA SAWHNEY V. UNION OF INDIA (1993) AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454

  • The Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case is a pivotal Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs while establishing critical limitations. The case arose from challenges to the Mandal Commission Report, which recommended a 27% quota for OBCs in central services. 
  • Petitioners argued that this policy violated the right to equality under Article 16 and questioned caste as a valid criterion for backwardness, citing potential inefficiencies in public institutions. The Supreme Court validated OBC reservations but imposed conditions: Total reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs must not exceed 50%. Caste may be a factor in determining backwardness, but economic and social criteria must also be considered. A “creamy layer” within OBCs must be identified and excluded from benefits. Reservation policies require periodic review and adjustment. 
  • The Court outlined 11 backwardness indicators, including social status, economic conditions, education levels, occupational patterns, political representation, social prejudices, disabilities, underrepresentation in services, population size, geographical isolation, and access to schools and hospitals. This ruling remains central to India’s reservation framework, balancing equitable implementation with fairness. While criticized for endorsing caste-based quotas, the Court justified its stance by emphasizing caste’s societal role and the need to address systemic disadvantages faced by OBCs.

  PRADEEP JAIN V. UNION OF INDIA (1984) 

  AIR 1984 SC 1420

  • The Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) case examined whether state medical colleges and higher education institutions could prioritize students based on state domicile or residency, even if they had lower merit. 
  • Petitioners argued that such policies violated equality principles under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 301, claiming residency requirements for state employment or appointments were unconstitutional. The respondents defended the policy, asserting that Article 16(2), which prohibits discrimination based on place of birth, did not apply to educational admissions, as the criterion was residence, not birth. 
  • The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that not all discrimination violates constitutional equality. It assessed the policy’s validity under Article 14, concluding that reasonable classification fosters unity in diversity. Thus, the Court upheld domicile-based seat reservations.

M.Nagaraj and Ors. V. Union Of India and Ors. (2006)

2006 8 SCC 212; writ petition (civil) 61 of 2002

The M. Nagaraj and Ors. v. Union of India (2006) case addressed reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). General category employees challenged the 85th Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), enabling promotion reservations for SCs and STs. Petitioners argued that these provisions breached the equality guarantee under Article 14 and were unnecessary, given adequate representation of SCs and STs in public employment. The respondents countered that the policy was essential for social justice and uplifting historically disadvantaged groups, justified under Article 16(4). The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) but set conditions for promotion reservations:

  1. Quantifiable data must demonstrate underrepresentation of SCs and STs in public employment.
  2. A contemporaneous executive order must authorize promotion reservations.
  3. The policy must align with administrative efficiency.
The Court also ruled that promotion reservations cannot be perpetual, requiring periodic government reviews to assess their necessity.

Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister and Ors

Civil Appeal No. 3123 of 2020; LL 2021 SC 243

  • In this case the Supreme Court in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister and Ors. evaluated the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provided reservations for the Maratha community in Maharashtra’s education and employment sectors.
  • Although the Bombay High Court upheld the Act while reducing reservation levels, petitioners challenged it in the Supreme Court. The Court struck down the SEBC Act, citing its breach of the 50% reservation ceiling established in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). It also found insufficient empirical evidence of the Maratha community’s backwardness and deemed the Act discriminatory, violating Article 14’s equality principle. 
  • This ruling significantly impacted India’s reservation policy, with some praising its commitment to fairness and others criticizing it for denying reservation benefits to the Maratha community.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES OF RESERVATION POLICIES

SOCIO-ECONOMIC OUTCOMES

Increased Representation: Reservation policies have significantly enhanced the presence of marginalized communities in various sectors. They have boosted participation of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government employment, public offices, and political spheres, addressing historical exclusion and marginalization.


Reduction of Discrimination: A core aim of reservation policies is to combat discrimination and social stigma against disadvantaged groups. By providing access to education and jobs, these policies have helped reshape societal attitudes and weaken traditional caste hierarchies, though fully eliminating discrimination remains a challenge


Economic Progress: Reservations have driven economic upliftment for beneficiaries by offering access to stable government jobs and educational opportunities. These positions provide security, benefits, and career growth, enabling many individuals and families to escape poverty and achieve middle-class status.


Implementation Hurdles: Despite their benefits, reservation policies face obstacles in execution. Issues such as corruption, lack of awareness, and limited opportunities prevent some eligible candidates from benefiting. Ensuring equitable access and reaching the most disadvantaged within reserved categories remains a complex issue.

Creamy Layer Issues : A pressing concern is the existence of a “creamy layer” within reserved categories, comprising more affluent individuals who continue to reap the benefits of reservations, perpetuating inequality. Addressing this issue is critical to guarantee that the intended beneficiaries receive the maximum advantages.

EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Expanded Access : Reservation policies have significantly broadened access to quality education for SCs, STs, and OBCs. This has enabled students from these communities to enroll in prestigious educational institutions that were previously beyond their reach.

Enhanced Literacy Rates : Over time, reservation policies have contributed to improved literacy rates among marginalized communities. Access to education has empowered individuals to pursue better employment prospects and engage more actively in society.

Disparities in Educational Quality :  Despite the increased access, disparities in the quality of education persist. Many educational institutions, particularly in rural areas, lack adequate resources and infrastructure, impacting the educational outcomes of students from reserved categories. Addressing these disparities is imperative to ensure equal opportunities.

Competitive Pressure : In highly competitive fields like medicine and engineering, the presence of reservation policies has generated intense competition for limited seats. This competition occasionally leads to tensions between students from reserved and unreserved categories, underscoring the need for a balanced and inclusive approach to admissions.

COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF RESERVATION

  • In 1882, the Hunter Commission was formed in response to Jyotirao Phule’s advocacy for universal free and compulsory education, as well as fair representation through reservations in government jobs.
  • In 1953, the Kalelkar Commission was established to assess the conditions of socially and educationally backward communities. Its recommendations were adopted for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but were not accepted for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
  • Established in 1979, the Mandal Commission examined the status of socially and educationally backward groups. Despite lacking precise data on OBCs, it estimated their population at 52% based on 1930 census figures. In 1980, the commission proposed increasing reservation quotas from 22% to 49.5%. These suggestions were implemented in government employment in 1990, sparking widespread protests by student groups, including extreme acts like the self-immolation attempt by Rajiv Goswami.
  • In 2003, the Sachar Committee, chaired by Justice Rajinder Sachar and including distinguished members, was tasked with studying the social, economic, and educational conditions of India’s Muslim community. Dr. Syed Zafar Mahmood served as the Officer on Special Duty, appointed by the Prime Minister. The committee submitted its report in 2006.

Arguments in Support of Reservation Policies:

  • Proponents view reservations as a critical political necessity in India.
  • While acknowledging potential impacts on educational quality, supporters of affirmative action argue that reservations have enabled many from marginalized and underrepresented communities to achieve prominent roles in global industries.
  • Advocates assert that, despite possible drawbacks, reservations are vital for ensuring social justice for the most disadvantaged, aligning with their fundamental human rights.
  • Supporters argue that meritocracy is meaningless without equality, emphasizing the need to level the playing field, even if it involves uplifting some while slowing others, regardless of inherent merit.
  • Reservations, proponents claim, disrupt the cycle of “the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer,” fostering more equitable societal progress.

Arguments Against Reservation Policies:

  • Critics warn that reservations could fracture the nation, akin to an internal partition. They argue that reservations, beyond being a form of ethnic discrimination, may discourage inter-caste and inter-faith marriages, deepening social divisions. Additionally, relaxed entry criteria for reserved categories might inflate qualifications rather than foster a merit-based education system, which many nations prioritize for progress. Instead of lowering standards, critics propose providing financial aid exclusively to deserving underprivileged candidates.
  • Opponents contend that caste-based reservations perpetuate the caste system, contrary to the Constitution’s vision of reducing its influence, and see them as a political tool serving narrow interests.
  • An alternative viewpoint suggests that affirmative action should adopt a broader approach, accounting for multiple dimensions of exclusion such as caste, economic status, gender, and quality of prior education. This holistic strategy is considered more effective in addressing social justice concerns than caste-based reservations alone.
  • Some critics contend that allocating quotas based on caste or other criteria amounts to a form of discrimination that contradicts the principle of equality.
  • It is also argued that these reservation policies have contributed to brain drain and may exacerbate this trend. Many undergraduates and graduates may choose to pursue higher education in foreign universities, impacting the nation’s intellectual capital.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the constitutional legitimacy of caste-based reservations in Indian higher education institutions remains a complex and highly debated issue, extensively discussed in legal and academic domains. The Indian Constitution recognizes the importance of affirmative action to address historical injustices and social inequalities while simultaneously enshrining equality and non-discrimination as core principles. The judiciary has been instrumental in navigating the tension between these competing values, often employing the doctrine of reasonable classification and affirmative action principles to uphold reservation policies. This study has explored the historical backdrop, legal foundations, and judicial perspectives on caste-based reservations in higher education. It is clear that these policies have significantly enhanced educational opportunities for marginalized groups, yet they face challenges related to effective execution, prevention of abuse, and concerns over merit-based systems. As demonstrated, the constitutional validity of caste-based reservations is a dynamic and evolving topic, shaped by changing societal trends, political factors, and judicial rulings. Evaluating their constitutionality requires balancing the need for affirmative action with efforts to mitigate reverse discrimination. Policymakers, academics, and society must engage in informed and nuanced discussions to address this critical issue, aiming to align with the constitutional ideals of equality and social justice. The pursuit of a fair and inclusive higher education system, free from caste-based discrimination, continues to be a collective goal and challenge for the nation.

REFERENCES

  • Rakesh Basant & Gitanjali Sen, Who Participates in Higher Education in India? Rethinking the Role of Affirmative Action, 45 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 62 (2010), https://www.jstor.org/stable/25742122.
  • C. Basavaraju, Reservation under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives, 51(2) J. Indian L. Inst. 267 (2009), https://www.jstor.org/stable/43953443.
  • Bhagwan Das, Moments in a History of Reservations, 35(39) Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 3831 (2000), https://www.jstor.org/stable/4409890.
  • Shubhangi Singh, Effect of Caste-Based Reservation in India on Employment Status of Non-Reserved Category (2019) (unpublished manuscript), available at https://uh-ir.tdl.org/items/913fd0c5-12ce-450e-8a16-7dc63c9f0ea4.
  • Tayfun Sönmez & M. Bumin Yenmez, Affirmative Action in India via Vertical and Horizontal Reservations, B.C. Working Papers in Econ., Paper No. 977 (2019).
  • Aditya Raj, Legal Aspects and Constitutional Background of Reservation Policy in India, 2 Indian J.L. & Legal Rsch. 5 (2023).
  • Prajwal Dwivedi, Argument For and Against the Reservation in India, Narsee Monjee Inst. Mgmt. Stud. (n.d.), available at https://rb.gy/xfyo1.
  • State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226.
  • Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477; 1992 Supp. (2) SCR 454.
  • Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420.
  • M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 61 of 2002.
  • Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Civil Appeal No. 3123 of 2020, LL 2021 SC 243.
  • Padmakshi Sharma, Supreme Court Upholds EWS Quota by 3:2 Majority; CJI Lalit & Justice Bhat in Minority, Live Law (Nov. 7, 2022), https://shorturl.at/lG179.
  • Reservation in India, Legal Services India, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7730-reservation-in-india.html (last visited Apr. 20, 2025).
  • What Is the History of Reservation in India?, Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.in/columns/what-is-the-history-of-reservation-in-india (last visited Apr. 20, 2025

AUTHOR 

Harsha Vardhan

Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College Pune