Rethinking Who Reservation Leaves Behind

Aayana Aggarwal - Shiv Nadar School, Faridabad

Rethinking Who Reservation Leaves Behind

Abstract

Reservation in India has long served as a tool for addressing historical injustices and ensuring equitable access to education, employment, and political representation for marginalized communities. However, as India evolves socioeconomically, questions arise about the relevance, fairness, and effectiveness of the current system. This white paper explores public perceptions of the reservation policy through a structured survey spanning diverse age groups, sectors, and social categories. The findings reveal a complex landscape—where support for the principle of affirmative action coexists with a growing call for reform based on economic status, merit, and evolving societal needs. Drawing upon data-driven insights, the paper examines the policy’s impact on merit, social unity, and inclusivity. It also assesses whether the system benefits its intended groups or needs recalibration. The paper concludes by offering nuanced, actionable recommendations for policymakers—aiming to balance historical justice with present-day equity and future societal cohesion.

Introduction & Background

“When wealth is centralized, the people are dispersed. When wealth is distributed, the people are united.” - Confucius

Reservation in India was introduced as a corrective framework, aiming to bridge the deep social, educational, and economic disparities created by centuries of caste-based hierarchy. Rather than simply offering identical opportunities to all, the policy was designed to level the playing field for historically disadvantaged communities by ensuring fair access to education, employment, and representation.

As mentioned by the GoI Monitor History of Reservation in India (n.d.), early voices like Jyotirao Phule and William Hunter in 1882 laid the groundwork for educational reforms benefiting marginalized communities. This idea gained momentum in 1932, when British Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald proposed the Communal Award, suggesting separate electorates for various minority communities, including Dalits. However, following opposition by Mahatma Gandhi, a compromise was reached through the Poona Pact with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, which led to reserved seats for depressed classes within a joint electorate for Hindus.

When the Indian Constitution was being framed, the makers recognized that social equality couldn't be achieved by mere formal rights. As a result, according to the IJALR The Evolution of Reservation System in India (n.d.) reservation was embedded as a temporary provision for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution. The idea was to correct historical wrongs and enable adequate representation in education, employment, and politics.

Initially, this provision was introduced for 10 years, hoping that social and educational backwardness would gradually decline. However, due to persistent inequalities, this time frame has been extended continuously through constitutional amendments — the most recent being the 104th Amendment, which extended SC/ST reservations in legislatures until 2030.

As detailed by the Legal Service India The Concept, Origin and Evaluation of Reservation Policy in India (n.d.), another key moment came with the Mandal Commission (1979), which studied OBC backwardness and recommended a 27% reservation for them in central government jobs and educational institutions. After nationwide protests and legal battles, this was implemented in the early 1990s, creating a three-tier structure of reservation — SCs, STs, and OBCs — and further igniting debates around meritocracy and fairness.

Thus, from a temporary corrective tool, reservation has evolved into a deeply embedded framework, continuing to shape access, opportunity, and representation in India today.

Present - Day Scenario

Over the decades, India’s reservation policy has become increasingly complex, multi-layered, and contested. The original idea of short-term affirmative action has transformed into a long-standing institutional feature — one that now covers over 50% of seats in many sectors.

A major shift occurred with the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act (2019), which introduced a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the General category. As outlined by the Business Standard Rohini Commission Decoded: Understanding Sub-Categorisation of OBCs (2023) for the first time, reservation was extended not on the basis of caste, but purely economic criteria, targeting those with annual incomes below ₹8 lakhs. This was seen as an attempt to balance historical caste-based affirmative action with economic realities.

However, this move also invited controversy. The Supreme Court had previously capped reservations at 50% in the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case, but the EWS quota pushed the total to 59.5%. In 2022, the court upheld this quota in the landmark Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India judgment, calling it a reasonable classification.

Although, the current framework is not inclusive enough. Despite the EWS quota, many from the General category continue to feel excluded and overburdened, as they compete for a shrinking share of open (unreserved) seats. According to the India Today Lateral Entry Controversy Explained (2024) cutoffs in entrance exams like NEET and JEE, often show vast differences across categories, intensifying concerns over fairness.

Furthermore, reservation policies are not uniformly implemented across the country. For instance, some Northeastern states have limited or no application of central reservation quotas due to special constitutional provisions. Others, like Tamil Nadu, have even crossed 69% reservation, highlighting the varied political and social landscapes of Indian states. As discussed by the Economic Times Rohini Commission Proposes 27% OBC Quota Split (2021).

Public opinion, as gathered through this white paper’s survey, explores public perceptions of the reservation policy through a structured survey spanning diverse age groups, economic classes, and occupational sectors. It acknowledges the original necessity of reservation but calls for a modernized model. The majority support affirmative action based on economic status and merit rather than solely caste.

Thus, while India has made significant progress in expanding representation and access, the conversation has clearly shifted — from whether reservation should exist, to how it should be recalibrated for present and future societal realities.

Survey Findings & Public Perception

To understand how the reservation system is viewed in today’s context, especially among different age groups and sectors, a primary survey was conducted. The following section presents the methodology, key trends, and insights derived from the 101 responses received. These findings help ground the white paper in real-world opinions and highlight both support for and concerns about the existing policy framework.

3.1 Methodology

To understand public perceptions of the reservation system in India, a survey was conducted using a mixed-method approach. A Google Form was initially circulated online among acquaintances, peers, and interest groups, yielding 13 responses. The remaining responses were collected through on-ground interactions, where the researcher personally approached individuals and requested them to fill out the survey. In total, 101 responses were recorded.

The survey used a convenience and purposive sampling method, aiming to gather views from individuals across various age groups and occupational sectors. Basic demographic information such as age group, sector of work or aspiration, and reservation status was collected.

While an attempt was made to include respondents from both reserved and unreserved categories, the final sample included a significantly higher proportion of individuals from the General category, with 6 OBC, 1 SC, and 1 ST respondent. The form was kept completely anonymous — no names, email addresses, or personally identifiable information were recorded, ensuring respondent privacy and honest participation.

To better understand the background of respondents, basic demographic data was also collected. This included age group, sector/occupation, and social category (General/Reserved).

3.2 Limitations of the Survey

While the survey offers valuable insights into public perception, it is important to acknowledge its limitations to maintain transparency and academic rigor.

Sample Size: The survey consisted of 101 responses, which, while adequate for indicative analysis, may not fully represent the diversity of India's population.
Sample Bias: A significant majority of respondents belonged to the General category. This demographic imbalance may have influenced the overwhelmingly critical views on the current reservation policy.
Urban and Educated Respondents: Given the online mode and network-based distribution of the survey, the sample likely skews towards urban, educated individuals, potentially underrepresenting rural and underprivileged voices.
Awareness Levels: Some responses may reflect limited understanding of policy details such as the creamy layer, EWS quota, or judicial interpretations, which could influence the accuracy or depth of opinions expressed.

Despite these limitations, the survey serves as a useful lens into a segment of the population that is vocal, connected, and civically engaged, offering valuable insights for rethinking reservation in contemporary India.

3.3 Key Findings with Interpretation

The survey responses, drawn from 101 individuals across varying age groups and sectors, offer key insights into public perception surrounding India's reservation policy.

A substantial 44% of respondents believe that reservation is no longer necessary, while 37% feel it remains necessary to some extent, and only 17% fully support its continued existence. This indicates a significant shift in public sentiment toward reform over retention, especially in light of recent debates around Economic Weaker Sections (EWS) and non-caste-based affirmative action.

When asked about the appropriate basis for reservation, the dominant view (36%) favored economic status, followed by merit (31%), and a mix of caste and economic criteria (24%). Only 10% supported caste as the sole basis. This reflects a growing inclination towards need-based and merit-centric policies, suggesting that many perceive caste-based reservation as increasingly misaligned with current social realities.

On the issue of fairness, over half the respondents (58%) felt the current system is not fair at all, while only 8% found it completely fair. Such responses reveal a deep perception gap and growing dissatisfaction with how the policy is implemented. It also reflects concern over issues such as the 'creamy layer', unequal benefit distribution, and lack of periodic review.

Interestingly, 63% of participants believe reservation should be time-bound, indicating widespread public support for a sunset clause or a mechanism to evaluate and revise the policy periodically. Only 18% believe it should continue until inequality ends — highlighting a belief that perpetual policies may hinder social cohesion rather than enhance it.

The impact of reservation on individuals also emerged as a critical insight. 39% reported negative experiences, either personal or observed in others, while only 20% cited positive effects. A notable 19% shared that they had experienced both, suggesting a complex emotional landscape around the policy — one where it can be simultaneously empowering and alienating.

Further, most respondents (40%) felt that the benefits of reservation reach only a few, and 35% believed it doesn’t reach the intended beneficiaries at all. This points toward issues like elite capture, where better-off sections within reserved categories dominate access, leaving the most marginalized still behind.

The survey also explored the perceived societal impact of reservation. 63% stated that it creates social division, while only 6% believed it fosters unity. This highlights the importance of public communication strategies that can clarify the intent and necessity of affirmative action to reduce polarisation.

On the hypothetical removal of reservation, 61% felt it would result in more fairness, while 30% warned it could lead to greater inequality. This contrast reveals underlying tensions between merit-based ideals and equity-based goals, showcasing how both narratives coexist in public consciousness.

When it comes to expanding reservation into private sectors and elite institutions, 62% were opposed, citing concerns over merit dilution, competitiveness, and institutional independence. Only 21% supported such an expansion.

Finally, when asked about the future direction of the policy, 57% advocated for reform, 35% for removal, and just 8% for strengthening the existing framework. This majority preference for reform indicates that people don’t want to dismantle the idea of reservation altogether, but believe it must be adapted, refined, and better targeted to serve its original purpose.

These public sentiments align with findings in the Scroll Reservation Meant to Remedy Historical Injustices (2022) and the Times of India Reservation Will End Only If Well-Off Opt-Out (2020), both of which highlight the push for internal review and reform.

3.4 Visual Representation

The following charts provide a visual summary of the survey responses discussed above. These help highlight dominant trends and divergent views on various aspects of the reservation policy in India.

Note: All data visualised below is based on a primary survey conducted by the author in June 2025, using both online and offline collection methods. The survey received 101 valid responses and was conducted anonymously.

3.5 Broader Connection & Link to Thesis

71% of respondents supported either reforming or ending the current reservation system — a sentiment that reflects emerging national concerns. The Rohini Commission Report (2023) revealed that just 25% of OBC sub-castes received 97% of the benefits, sparking calls for internal quota rationalisation. In Jarnail Singh v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court reinforced the need for data-backed backwardness in promotions, rejecting automatic quotas without evidence.

Additionally, political voices across party lines have proposed a sunset clause — a built-in expiry or review mechanism — to ensure that affirmative action remains dynamic, not permanent by default. This idea connects deeply with public demand for time-bound, impact-measured policies.

Together, these real-world developments and survey findings support the paper’s thesis: India must rethink reservation — not to erase it, but to redesign it for justice, merit, accountability and inclusivity.

4. Policy Recommendations

The findings from the public survey strongly suggest a need for recalibrating India’s reservation framework rather than replacing it entirely. These recommendations aim to refine the reservation system in a way that aligns with contemporary social realities, expands access, ensures equity within reserved groups, and fosters inclusive growth. The proposed policies have been designed with a realistic implementation approach and are rooted in relevant public policy frameworks.

4.1 Accessible Opportunity Quota for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs)

This policy aims to enforce and expand the under-implemented 4% horizontal reservation for PwDs across all vertical categories (SC/ST/OBC/General) in both education and public employment. Despite existing provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (Government of India, 2016), the actual representation of PwDs remains far below this benchmark. According to data from the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, only 0.6% of students in higher education are PwDs, as shown in the DEPwD Annual Report 2023–24 (2024). Reports by The New Indian Express, Quota Subversion: PwDs Cry Foul (2022), and Bar & Bench (2023) expose how universities routinely evade the mandated 5% disability quota, highlighting the urgent need for stronger enforcement mechanisms.

Type of Policy: Redistributive Policy Instrument: Regulation and Acting Directly Principle: Inclusive equity Proactive Stakeholders: UGC, State Commissions, UPSC, SSC, education institutions, disability rights organizations. Beneficiaries: All caste groups, policy-makers, legal institutions; ensures equitable, updated implementation for future generations.

Strengthening this policy will not only ensure compliance with domestic law but also fulfil India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It will enhance accessibility and foster long-term participation of nearly 2 crore persons in mainstream socio-economic spaces. This can be seen in IIT Madras, which implemented a fully-accessible campus audit, and saw a 37% rise in PwD student applications post-upgrade.

4.2 Reservation Accountability Portal (RAP)

There is no centralized system to monitor how reserved seats are actually filled across states, categories, and sectors. This digital dashboard will publicly display data on reservation utilisation, backlog positions, and outreach, enabling evidence-based policy corrections.

Type of Policy: Substantive Policy Instrument: Information-Based and Regulation Proactive Stakeholders: Ministry of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Education, State Backward Commissions, NIC (NITI Aayog may serve as a policy audit and monitoring adviser) Beneficiaries: ST and SC communities in remote, forested, and under-connected regions; tribal youth lacking access to basic entitlements and representation.

The PIB India Press Release on PwD Act Implementation (2024) and the failure of the Rohini Commission to classify over 2,600 OBC groups due to lack of data make a case for a centralized digital monitoring dashboard.

4.3 Sub-Quota Equity Model for DNTs and Marginalized Sub-Castes

Taking notes from the Gramin Shiksha Voicing the Community (2022), this policy proposes internal sub-quotas within SC/OBC/ST categories for Denotified Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) and extremely backward sub-castes who have not meaningfully benefited from reservation. For instance, in states like Maharashtra and Bihar, dominant OBC sub-castes often corner a large share of benefits.

Type of Policy: Redistributive Policy Instrument: Regulation Proactive Stakeholders: National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), Tribal Affairs Ministry, State DNT Welfare Boards Beneficiaries : Persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD), especially those from underrepresented regions or low-income households.

As per the Idate Commission Report (2018), nearly 98% of DNTs remain landless, and most lack political representation. A refined quota model will uphold justice within justice, ensuring benefits reach the most marginalized.

4.4 Voluntary Opt-Out with Merit Incentives

This aligns with proposals discussed in Times of India Reservation Will End Only If Well-Off Opt-Out (2020) allowing individuals eligible for reservation to voluntarily opt out of reservation benefits for a set period (e.g., five years) in exchange for soft incentives such as recognition, priority in application review, or alternative scholarships. This mechanism maintains legal entitlement while encouraging ethical self-selection.

Type of Policy: Distributive Policy Instrument: Expenditure-Based Proactive Stakeholders: Public Service Commissions, UGC, AICTE, Ministry of Personnel Beneficiaries: Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) across all castes, particularly genuine low-income applicants within the general category.

National-level discussions support this concept—during a 2019 panel in Nagpur, speakers argued that "reservation is like a wheelchair … those well‑off … should give up quota benefits for their next generations”

4.5 Reservation-Linked Skilling in Emerging Sectors

According to the World Bank India Skill PAD (2017) and MSDE India Skill Development Initiatives Report (2024), SC/ST communities are underrepresented in modern sectors like AI, EV, and climate tech. A Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model could address this, echoing international guidelines from the ICAO IM-PPP Page (n.d.).

Type of Policy: Capitalisation Policy Instrument: Regulation and Public-Private Collaboration Proactive Stakeholders: Ministry of Skill Development, NSDC, NASSCOM, private industry CSR arms Beneficiaries: Women and trans persons within SC, ST, and OBC groups; promotes layered inclusion where caste and gender disadvantages intersect.

NSDC data indicate that only about 2.3% of India’s total workforce has received any formal skill training, with Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) often underrepresented in urban and tech-based skilling programs. This suggests a gap not only in access but also in targeted inclusion within modern skill development initiatives.

4.6 EquiSupport Scheme: Ensuring Opportunity for Economically Weaker Sections in General Category

Reservation policy in India has historically addressed caste-based exclusion, but economic vulnerability among general category students remains under-addressed. The EquiSupport Scheme aims to bridge this gap through non-quota-based affirmative measures. While maintaining the integrity of the 10% EWS quota, this policy proposes enhancing its implementation and supplementing it with merit-cum-means based support mechanisms.

As per The News Minute, Financially Weaker Students Receive Only 2% Scholarships (2014), EWS students in the General category lack sufficient support. National Sample Survey data also indicate that only about 2% of education scholarships in India go to economically disadvantaged students—despite caste-based schemes making up 94% of available awards—highlighting a significant imbalance in financial aid distribution.

This policy proposes strict enforcement of the existing EWS quota across all public institutions, revisiting the income threshold (suggested: reduced to ₹5 lakh/year in line with other social welfare schemes), and rolling out income-verified benefits such as entrance exam fee waivers, hostel subsidies, and scholarships. This would include fee waivers and scholarship expansion using existing tools like SWAYAM and DIKSHA, also recommended by the NITI Aayog Sub-Group Report on Skill Development (2022).

By extending structured support within the unreserved 40.5%, this policy promotes genuine equal opportunity without altering constitutional caps. It also prevents misuse by excluding asset-rich applicants and aligning support with actual need. By addressing frustrations among non-reserved economically weak students and promoting fairness within the open category, the scheme enhances social cohesion and strengthens the credibility of the overall reservation framework.

Policy Type: Distributive Instrument Used: Expenditure-Based Policy Proactive Governance Principle: Equity within Equality

Stakeholders: Ministry of Education, UGC, State Welfare Boards, NITI Aayog Beneficiaries: Economically weaker individuals within the general category (verified income below ₹5 lakh)

5. Conclusion

The question of reservation is not merely a matter of quotas, but one that speaks to the core of India's democratic promise — to uplift, to include, and to ensure that every citizen, regardless of birth, has a fair chance to succeed. Over decades, the reservation system has played a pivotal role in correcting deep-rooted structural inequalities. Yet, as Indian society evolves — economically, socially, and aspirationally — so too must its policies.

This white paper sought to examine not whether reservation should exist, but how it should adapt to better reflect today’s challenges. Through a blend of public perception surveys and policy analysis, the findings reveal a nation that is not dismissive of reservation, but is increasingly in favour of reform over removal. With 44% of respondents stating that reservation may no longer be necessary in its current form, and 37% advocating for its limited or modified use, a clear signal emerges: the public desires fairness that accounts for both caste-based and economic vulnerability.

My stand on “Rethinking Reservation” is not about dismantling the existing framework, but about expanding its relevance. A forward-looking policy must protect the gains made by historically marginalised communities, while also addressing the emerging needs of those disadvantaged in new forms — be it economically weaker sections, people with disabilities, or underrepresented regional groups.

Around the world, democracies are grappling with how to balance identity-based justice with socioeconomic fairness. India has the opportunity to set a global example: one where affirmative action remains rooted in historical justice, but is continuously reviewed, responsibly implemented, and sensitively expanded. It is only through such dynamic recalibration that reservation can continue to serve as a tool of empowerment — not division — and help India realise its fullest democratic potential.