Reservation policy in India: Constitutional Perspective

*Reservation Policy in India: A Constitutional Perspective*

*Introduction*

The reservation policy in India has been a subject of much debate and controversy, particularly with respect to its compatibility with Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. This article aims to explore the constitutional validity of reservation policies in India, with a focus on Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination).

*Equality Before the Law*

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws to all persons, regardless of their race, religion, caste, or gender. However, this does not mean that everyone must be treated the same way. The Supreme Court has held that equals must be treated equally, and unequals must be treated unequally (Indra Sawhney case).

The reservation policy in India seeks to provide affirmative action to historically disadvantaged groups, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. The policy reserves a certain percentage of seats in educational institutions and government jobs for these groups.

Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution allow for special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of reservation policies, provided they are based on valid and reasonable classification and do not result in discrimination against other groups.

*Economic Status: A Suggested Criterion for Reservation Benefits*

While the current reservation policy is based on caste and social status, it is suggested that economic status should also be considered for reservation benefits.

*Landmark Cases:*

1. *Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992)*: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservation policies and established the "creamy layer" concept, excluding economically advanced individuals from backward classes.

2. *M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006)*: The Supreme Court held that the Constitution allows for reservation in promotions, but only if there is a compelling reason to do so.

3. *Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (2008)*: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, which provided for 27% reservation for OBCs in central educational institutions.

*Committees and Commissions:*

1. *Mandal Commission (1979)*: Established to identify socially and educationally backward classes, the commission recommended 27% reservation for OBCs.

2. *Sachar Committee (2005)*: Examined the social, economic, and educational status of Muslims in India and recommended affirmative action measures.

3. *Ranganath Misra Commission (2007)*: Recommended 15% reservation for religious and linguistic minorities, including Muslims.

*Criticisms and Challenges*

Despite its constitutional validity, the reservation policy has faced criticisms and challenges from various groups.

*Way Forward*

To address these criticisms and challenges, it is essential to review and revise the reservation policy periodically.

*Conclusion*

In conclusion, the reservation policy in India is a constitutional means to promote social justice and address historical discrimination.