Beyond the 50% Limit: Substantive Equality in India’s Reservation Policy

The debate over whether reservations should exceed the 50% ceiling has resurfaced following political demands for higher quotas and the Supreme Court’s notice to the Centre regarding the extension of the ‘creamy layer’ principle to SCs and STs.
It raises fundamental questions about formal versus substantive equality, social justice, meritocracy, and the future of affirmative action in India.

Constituent Assembly Debates (1946–1949):
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasised that reservations should remain limited to preserve the right to equality of opportunity.
- Affirmative action was intended as a temporary corrective, not a permanent entitlement.
Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962):
- Supreme Court held that while Articles 15(4) and 16(4) allow reservations, they must be “reasonable” and not destroy equality.
- Established 50% as a fair judicial limit.
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975):
- Expanded interpretation to recognise substantive equality.
- Suggested that reservations are extensions of equality, not exceptions.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
- Upheld 27% OBC quota while firmly capping total reservations at 50%, allowing exceptions only in extraordinary circumstances.
- Introduced the creamy layer principle for OBCs, excluding advanced sections.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022):
- Upheld 10% EWS reservation, ruling that the 50% ceiling applies only to socially and educationally backward class reservations, effectively breaching it at the central level.

Formal Equality:
- Treats all individuals the same under law.
- Assumes a level playing field already exists.
- Example: Reservation capped at 50% as a departure from equality.
Substantive Equality:
- Recognises that certain groups face historic and structural disadvantages.
- Reservations are tools to achieve real equality.
- Example: N.M. Thomas (1975) viewed reservations as assertions of equality.
Implication:
- 50% cap reflects formal equality, while demands to exceed it arise from substantive equality considerations.

Demographic Reality:
- Backward classes account for over 60% of India’s population (Mandal Commission & state surveys).
- The 50% ceiling restricts proportional representation.
Growing Political Demands:
- Some states (e.g., Bihar) propose quotas up to 85%, reflecting social pressures.
Unequal Benefits:
- Rohini Commission (2017–2023) found 97% of OBC benefits go to 25% sub-castes, while ~1,000 OBC castes have zero representation.
- Higher quotas with sub-categorisation could address this imbalance.
Substantive Equality:
- N.M. Thomas (1975) highlighted that reservations are continuations of equality, and numerical limits should not undermine social justice.
State Practice:
- States like Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Maharashtra have legislated beyond 50%, showing social realities may demand breaching the cap.

Judicial Precedent:
- Indra Sawhney (1992) reaffirmed 50% ceiling to maintain a balance between merit and social justice.
Vacant Seats:
- Government data shows 40–50% of reserved vacancies remain unfilled; raising quotas without better implementation may be ineffective.
Creamy Layer Problem:
- Even within OBCs, the creamy layer is excluded. Expanding reservations without addressing this will increase intra-caste inequality.
Risk to Efficiency:
- Excessive quotas may compromise institutional and administrative efficiency if merit is sidelined.
Alternative Focus Needed:
- Reforms like caste census, sub-categorisation, and filling backlog vacancies can ensure more equitable benefits without breaching the cap.

Empirical Foundations:
- Conduct Caste Census (2027) for accurate demographic data to guide reservation policy.
Sub-Categorisation:
- Implement Rohini Commission recommendations for equitable OBC quota distribution.
- Consider a two-tier system for SCs/STs, prioritising most marginalised.
Dynamic Cap, Not Fixed:
- Re-examine 50% ceiling considering demographics.
- Allow flexibility for states with exceptionally high backward class proportions.
Beyond Quotas:
- Focus on education, skill development, entrepreneurship, and private sector diversity.
- Strengthen economic uplift schemes alongside caste quotas.
Balance Equity with Efficiency:
- Reservation should be a tool of empowerment, not a permanent entitlement.
- Ensure meritocracy and social justice go hand in hand.

The 50% reservation cap is a judicial limit, not a constitutional mandate.
While intended to balance social justice and efficiency, evolving social realities demand a flexible, data-driven approach.
Measures like caste census, sub-categorisation, and economic empowerment can ensure reservations remain a tool of justice for the most marginalised, rather than a political instrument.

Share the Post: