A welcome quota

Reservation for general category should not breach the 50% cap

The Union Cabinet’s decision to push for 10 per cent reservation in jobs and educational institutions for the economically backward section in the “general” category is a significant departure from the existing system of reservation only on the basis of social backwardness. Since this change will require amendments to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, the government is expected to table a Constitution amendment Bill in Parliament on Tuesday. The move is welcome as the new category of reservation will be targeted at the economically deprived in the general category, which does not benefit from any form of job quotas at present. It also does not differentiate on the basis of caste and religion. In other words, the reservation is not just for the Hindus but also for the non-Hindus such as the Muslims and Christians.

For a long time now there has been resentment among many general category constituents who are deprived of better education and job opportunities as they do not get the “benefit” of reservation. Their argument has been that the rules of the game are against them — they have been losing out because existing constitutional reservations recognise only social and educational backwardness but not economic backwardness. Indeed, several political parties have been supporting such reservations in the past and will find it difficult to openly oppose this latest move by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party ahead of the general elections in May.
 

The point, however, is that the new category of reservations will be over and above the 50 per cent cap set by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India judgment of 1992. Some states have already breached this limit by adding the backward Muslims (as is the case in Telangana) or Most Backward Classes (as is the case in Tamil Nadu) to the reservations allowed to Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes by placing this in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution to escape judicial scrutiny. For example, caste-based reservation stands at 69 per cent and is applicable to about 87 per cent of the population in Tamil Nadu. Moreover, the Constitution does not allow reservations to be based purely on economic grounds. 

If the government goes ahead and argues in favour of creating a category of reservations beyond the 50 per cent cap, it will compromise merit as the opportunities for those left in the non-reserved general category will shrink further. If such a precedent is set, it is likely to open the door for more demands in the future. The proposed move will take the total reservation to 60 per cent. This is way too high and the government must make sure that the new category of reservation does not water down the overall existing cap of 50 per cent. Besides, the criteria for defining the economically weak needs to be revisited. Government officials have said that a person will be qualified as economically backward if her household income is below Rs 8 lakh; if she owns agricultural land of less than 5 hectares; homes smaller than 1,000 square feet; residential plots below 109 yards in notified municipalities; and owns residential plots below 209 yards in a non-notified municipality area. This is too liberal and should be tightened for better targeting.