Why Does Reservation Still Exist? And When Does The Law Expect It To End?
Introduction
The end of “reservation” is a question that has been asked almost continuously throughout history. In courts, in the assembly, in classrooms, at tea stalls and probably in every Indian household, you must have come across it at least once in your life. The often-heard statement that Dr Ambedkar intended it to end in 10 years is misguided, as it referred to assembly reservation, not the jobs and education reservations that people are most concerned about. Then, is there a stipulated timeline for its end?
This article relies on judgments and commission reports to explain why reservation still exists and why, unfortunately, they still will in the foreseeable future.
Why Do Reservations Still Exist?
The Constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, as per Article 15, and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment as per Article 16. Reservation is rooted in the exceptions of these articles, which allow the state to make provisions for the betterment of SCs, STs and the socially and economically backward class, in furtherance of Article 46. To understand the reasoning of this, we must understand the reasoning of the Mandal Commission.
Mandal Commission
The Commission submitted its report on 31st December 1980. The report highlighted that the Indian administration is socially exclusive and dominated by a few castes. This is a structural issue and can not be solved with formal equality. Backward classes cannot advance into administration, even if they possess merit, as society doesn’t permit them. It states that “There is equality only among equals. To equate unequals is to perpetuate inequality.” And proposes reservation not as charity, but as a corrective mechanism to break the upper caste monopoly and democratise state power.
The commission identifies socially backward classes using 11 indicators. The objective of these indicators was to identify systematically suffering classes and not just individuals who have misfortune. Hence, their rationale identified inequalities that are unlikely to disappear “naturally.” This is why they assigned the highest value to social indicators and the lowest to economic indicators, as poverty was present across all castes, including the monopoly holder, and could be naturally resolved. A key detail is that the commission clearly stated the reservation is not permanent.
This is why the reservation started. Now, let’s understand why the reservation stayed, but is capped at 50%
The Cases
The 1992 case of Indra Sawhney outlined the rationale for continued reservation, which remains valid to justify it. The court stated that the legislature had a specific aim behind the reservation, which remains unfulfilled to this day. Backwardness is continuing and not a historical fiction. It is still structural, and individual success does not erase group disadvantage. It reiterates the Mandal Commission, stating that Formal equality is meaningless when starting positions are unequal. Moreover, it clarified that a reservation doesn’t destroy merit; it merely postpones it. It may sacrifice merit, but it does not sacrifice competence, as even the reserved class will gain competence eventually.
However, it balanced the right to equality by stating that the overall reservation cannot exceed 50%. The judges gave the rationale that equality is the right and protection is the exception. The exception cannot hollow out the right itself. If the reservation goes beyond 50% it will no longer protect the “minority” and defeat the right itself. It further pointed out that the exception under Article 16(4) requires adequate representation, not proportionate representation, thereby discarding the argument that the reservation should be calculated based on the population of the backward class. With the same reasoning, the court rejected the idea of reservation in promotion. But the legislature felt this defeated the purpose of the reservation and explicitly added the provision for promotion in the 77th Amendment Act.
Although the courts have not struck down the amendment, they have made it very clear that if the state wishes to exercise this discretion and make such a provision, it has to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class before making any promotion based on reservation.
Notably, throughout history, both the legislature and the judiciary have consistently stated that reservations are not permanent and require regular review. The reservation was established to provide representation for the backward and will end when that goal is achieved.
Unfortunately, The Reservation Will Stay
Dr Ambedkar stated in his famous speech, This nation, and this constitution will only be as good as the people who will come to command it. When I say unfortunately, I don’t mean it is unfortunate because it provides the so-called disadvantage to the meritorious. The misfortune is that the intended goal of the provision is not in sight. Yes, the monopoly of the upper caste is damaged, but the corrupt upper caste is just replaced by the corrupt lower caste.
The hopeful intent behind the reservation was that if the backward class entered the legislature and the executive, it would uplift the rest of the class with opportunities that the upper caste systematically denied. This way, the society will eventually share an equal footing, abolishing reservations.
However, empirical studies raise questions about whether political reservations alone achieve structural upliftment. It raises the question of whether backward classes that gain political opportunities behave with the intention of uplifting their class. Even after being elected from reserved constituencies, many MPs and MLAs show little effort toward long-term development, such as building schools or hospitals. A well-known study by Francesca Jensenius, which examined decades of reserved constituencies, found no meaningful improvement in public goods like education or health infrastructure in Dalit-dominated areas. Similarly, a study by Shampa Bhattacharjee and Arka Roy Chaudhuri on welfare outcomes shows that representatives from reserved seats tend to prefer short-term, easily distributable benefits, such as temporary employment under MGNREGA, rather than investing in lasting development.
This does not deny the reality that backward classes continue to face discrimination and therefore still have a legitimate claim to reservations. However, the nature of discrimination has evolved and, in many spaces, softened over time. In this context, reservation cannot remain only a mechanism for political access; it must also translate into responsibility. It’s time the reserved class bear that responsibility. The constitutional objective of reservation was not merely representation, but the creation of conditions enabling backward classes to achieve substantive equality without perpetual reliance on exceptional measures.
The continued necessity of reservations reflects not a flaw in the constitutional design, but the failure to achieve the conditions under which such measures would become redundant. While reservations have weakened historical monopolies over political and administrative power, their transformative potential has not been fully realised.
Pingback: Can Democracy Be Undone Legally? The Quiet Power of Election Administration - elementlex.com