Author Details:-

Sivagayathri Ramesh Babu Graduated from Government Law College Madurai

Introduction

Reservation policies in India, conceived to right the wrongs of historical injustices and achieve social equity, have for a long period been one of the key planks of the country’s affirmative action policies. Conceived to bring up the poorer and backward classes by increasing their participation in education, employment, and political life, reservation policies have not only been constantly evolving but also smolder in high-level debate and controversy. It is the sociopolitical history that has given Tamil Nadu one of the highest reservations in the country. Recent additions to this discussion, especially the introduction of EWS quotas, have added new layers to the same. This article assesses the evolution of reservation policy in Tamil Nadu and India, key landmark judgments, and the current status of reservation with the EWS provision.

The Foundation of Reservation in India

India’s reservation system originated in British colonial policies, which instituted quotas in public services and education to enhance representation for marginalized communities. After independence, affirmative action was constitutionally recognized, with Articles 15(4) and 16(4) allowing special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, and STs. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) [1], the Supreme Court set a 50% reservation cap, arguing that excessive reservation could compromise administrative merit and efficiency. However, it allowed for exceptions under compelling conditions. States like Tamil Nadu challenge this ceiling, citing unique social needs.

Unique Reservation Structure in Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu’s reservation structure is distinct, rooted in the Dravidian movement’s goal of dismantling caste hierarchies. It allocates 50% to OBCs, 18% to SCs, and 1% to STs, totaling 69%. Although the Supreme Court capped reservations at 50%, Tamil Nadu’s policy surpasses this limit, protected from judicial review by its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

Landmark Judgments on Reservation in Tamil Nadu and India

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Known as the Mandal Commission case, this judgment upheld OBC reservations but capped reservations at 50%. It also excluded the “creamy layer” of economically advanced individuals within backward classes from benefits. Tamil Nadu has continued with its over-50% reservation policy, though this judgment set a precedent for future rulings.

T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka [2]: This ruling supported private, unaided institutions’ autonomy over admissions based on merit, sparking debate about whether reservation mandates should apply to private institutions to promote social justice.

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [3]: The Court upheld reservation powers but required states to present quantifiable data on backwardness to justify it, emphasizing objective criteria rather than an absolute right.

Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra (2021) [4]: The Court struck down Maharashtra’s Maratha reservation for exceeding the 50% limit, reiterating that exceeding this cap requires extraordinary conditions.

Youths for Equality v. Union of India (2019 [5]): The Court upheld the EWS reservation introduced by the 103rd Amendment but questioned its application in Tamil Nadu, where the reservation already surpasses 50%.

Reservation in Tamil Nadu: The Current Scenario

Tamil Nadu’s policy rejects “creamy layer” exclusion within OBC reservations and does not implement the EWS quota, emphasizing caste-based over economic criteria. Believing that caste is a stronger disadvantage than economic status, the state maintains its 69% reservation policy, exceeding the national 50% limit.

50% Cap and Its Challenges

The Supreme Court’s 50% ceiling on reservations was meant to balance affirmative action and meritocracy, yet Tamil Nadu’s 69% policy challenges this cap due to unique state-specific social realities. Initially shielded by the Ninth Schedule, Tamil Nadu’s reservation framework was protected from judicial review; however, recent judgments suggest the Ninth Schedule can still face constitutional challenges if it violates the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

The 50% reservation cap is further complicated by calls to extend affirmative action to economically disadvantaged groups, as seen with the EWS quota. Supporters argue that reservations should include economically deprived individuals regardless of caste, while critics worry this shift undermines caste-based affirmative action meant to address entrenched social inequalities.

Periodic Review and Reservation’s Future

Experts advocate periodic reviews of reservation policies to ensure they meet evolving socio-economic needs. This would allow reservations to protect disadvantaged groups without creating imbalances. Implementing a “creamy layer” exclusion in Tamil Nadu could streamline reservations by focusing on the most disadvantaged, although Tamil Nadu’s emphasis on caste-based reservations suggests resistance to such reforms

Reasons for Non-Implementation in Tamil Nadu:

1. Overstepping Constitutional Limitation: The 69% reservation policy of Tamil Nadu has already crossed the constitutional limitation of a 50% ceiling as ordained by the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (1992). The state has continued this quota above the limit with a special inclusion in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution to avoid judicial review.
2. Socio-Political Dynamics: In this context, the Government of Tamil Nadu foresees that the policy of reservation already takes care of the socio-economic needs of the state and that any more quotas would upset this socio-economic fine tuning.
3. Legal Obstacles: Any additional reservation, such as EWS, will require a recasting of the current quota and may face constitutional and legal obstacles.

Conclusion

Reservation policies in Tamil Nadu and India reflect the continuing tension between attempts to balance social justice as a balm to historical wounds and meritocracy. In TamiNadu alone, the approach has been single-mindedly shaped by its adherence to caste-based affirmative action, a reminder that every policy on social equity must consider regional contexts. With the difficulties that have arisen in India, the need for reform that retains the spirit of equality and fairness while striding with the socio-economic flux without betraying the reservation policy’s historical purpose continues unabated.

Hence, careful calibration, judicial oversight, and targeted reforms lie at the heart of the future of reservation. In India’s march ahead, it has to preserve the spirit of affirmative action while meeting the growing needs of a diverse society.

End Notes

[1] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1993 SC 477

[2] T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs State Of Karnataka: 1994 AIR 2372, 1994 SCC (2) 734

[3] M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India and Others. AIR 2007 SC 71

[4] Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. Chief Minister. 2020 Latest Caselaw 503 Sc: 2020

[5] Youth for Equality v Union of India 2019