This is transcript of video lectures from the series of [[15 Video Lectures on Indian Constitution]] **Navigate to other lectures in this series:** [[Introduction to Indian Constitution]] | [[Constituent Assembly Debates]] | [[Preamble of Indian Constitution]] | [[Citizenship in India]] | [[Right to Equality]] | [[Reservation Policies and Indian Constitution]] | [[Freedom of Speech & Expression]] | [[Right to Life and Personal Liberty]] | [[Freedom of Religion]] | [[Rights of Minorities]] | [[Directive Principles]] | [[Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles & Fundamental Duties’ Relationship]] | [[Union Executive Powers & Position of President & Prime Minister]] | [[Indian Judiciary]] | [[Constitutional Amendments & the Basic Structure Theory]] # Chapter 6 - Lecture 6 By Prof. (Dr.) Faizan Mustafa Namashkar, welcome to online course on Indian Constitution run by Nalsari University of law and is sponsored by Ministry of Law and Justice Government of India. We have already talked about right to equality. Today we are going to specifically talk about a very important subject, reservation policies and Indian constitution. Now, what is the history of reservations? Now, if you look at the history of reservations, you will find that reservation policies were introduced by some of the princely states and then they were introduced by the Bhattesh. So Tamil Brahmins had the first mover advantage in terms of their knowledge of English, though they were just 3% but they occupied about 80% of jobs in the Mysore princely state. As a result, Kanna Brahmins had an extremely low representation in public services. They were protests, they were concerns about the low representation of Kanna Brahmins accordingly in 1918 the Maharaja of Mysore appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Miller to investigate and report on the situation and suggest measures to provide a adequate representation of depressed classes. At that time, the term used was depressed classes. Thus, if you see this, that it is the Kanna Brahmins who are initially flagging the issue of their low representation and therefore, they contributed to the adoption of policy of reservation. Now, if you look further, you will find in 1921, preferential recruitment for backward communities was instituted formally for the first time in colleges and state services of Mysore. In 1921, reservation of government jobs for non-Brahms was introduced for the first time by the Prince of Mysore, Krishnrajay Vedya. Then, princely states of Kola, Pur and Baroda also followed reservation policies and subsequently reservation policy would be adopted by Madras presidency. So, since Maharaja of Mysore introduced some reforms with a view of giving larger share to Kanna Brahmins, Vokalingas and Lingayas besides the untouchable caste and Muslims and due to this reservation, there was a anti-Brahmin movement in Tamil Nadu and also, drumming Kanna started demanding special quotas and conceding their demand, the Madras presidency granted reservation in government jobs and educational institutions. So, it is clear to you that there was a demand from Kanna Brahmins. Then, reservation is given to Brahmins, Vokalingas, Lingayas, Untouchables, Muslims. So, there was a counter-reaction in Tamil Nadu and due to this counter-reaction and anti-Brahmin movement, Madras presidency had to concede and adopt policy of reservation. Then, one of the biggest mile stone in the modern Indian history on the whole question of reservation would come from B.R. Ambedkar's who was now leading depressed classes movement and they demanded representation and reservation accordingly Puna Pact was signed in 1932. Interestingly, Gandhi Ji himself did not sign Puna agreement and it was signed by Madhan Mohan Malviya who you know is also founder of Banaras in the university as the representative of caste Hindus. Now, what did Puna Pact provide? Puna Pact provided for the increase in number of reserve seats from 78 to 148 as well as a adequate representation for a depressed cast in the central legislature as well as provincial legislature. Puna Pact was subsequently incorporated in the Indian constitution and reservation in parliament and assemblies was initially provided for 10 years and subsequently it has been extended. Now, subsequently, Ambedkar became member of Voice Royes executive council and on his proposal for the first time 8.5% seats in central services were for the schedule class. So, there is one reservation in assembly which had a time frame and there is another reservation which is in jobs which does not have any time frame. What are the goals of reservations? What Ambedkar was demanding? What Kanna Brahmin's were demanding? Representation. So, our society is diverse, it is good if society's diversity is reflected in the public institutions. This is the reason which is adopted even in United States and diversity is considered as legitimate consideration in the admissions in higher education. There is no reservation policy so to say like us but diversity will be taken into account in admissions. The goal of reservation policy is to have an egalitarian society. The purpose is to bring unequals at the level of equals. Reservation promotes substantive equality rather than mayor formal equality. We had discussed that in the last session. Now, what are the relevant constitutional provisions on reservation? We just discussed that to correct historical wrongs of denial of equality to certain sections of our population, our constitution not only promised just social, economic and political and equality of stage does an opportunity in the preamble. We discussed this in the preamble lecture. But our constitution also incorporated equality in articles 14 to 18, it abolished untouchability in article 17, it favored opening of doors of Hindu temples for all sections of Hindu in article 25 and then constitution, indirective principles created a positive obligation on the state. Article 46 says, state shall promote with special care the educational and economic interest of weaker sections of the people. A wider term is used that a state will take a special care of educational and economic interest of weaker sections. And then this article says, in particular of schedule costs and schedule tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. We had discussed in the last lecture that is how SCSD act of protection of civil rights act were enacted. Then article 35 of the constitution clearly lays down that the claims, this is a crucial word, put it in inverted commas, claims of the members of the schedule costs and schedule tribes shall be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration in making of appointments to services and posts. So whenever a state is making appointment it will consider the claims of members of SCs and STs but these claims must remain consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. Then we have created number of constitutional bodies to monitor matters and safeguard relating to SCs and STs and BCs to inquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights of SCs and STs and backward classes. So we have a National Schedule Class Commission, article 338. We have National Schedule Tribe Commission, Article 338A. We have a National Backward Class Commission recently established by Article 338B when 100 and second constitutional amendment was inserted in the constitution. Who are SCs and who are STs? There is no caste in India which is called SC or there is no tribe in India which is called ST but this is an umbrella term. SCs includes number of caste and STs includes number of tribes. So term schedule caste was used in Government of India Act 1935. That is why in one of the earlier lectures I had said Government of India Act 1935 is very important that is why we are discussing it in details. These are the very same caste which were earlier called Dipres classes. I refer to Puna Pact and I am Baitkar being the leader of Dipres classes. What were earlier called Dipres classes? They are now becoming Schedule Class, Closes 24 and 25 of Article 366, Defined Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes and it is the President of India who will define through a presidential order what caste are to be included in these two categories. Now initially only members of the Schedule Caste professing Hinduism and four caste among six Kabir Pantheos, Randasi, Sikleegers and Masabees were included in the list. In 1956 this benefit was extended to include all Schedule Caste professing Sikhism. In 1990, Schedule Caste professing Buddhism were also included among the Schedule Caste. So, a Schedule Caste person must profess Hinduism but people of other religions can be included in the category of Schedule Tribes. Subsequently OBC reservation was also provided when Mandal Commission was implemented. Then in 2019, economically backward classes were also given reservation. Who are backward classes of citizens? Constitution gives no definition of backward class of citizens. Article 340 talked of Commission to investigate conditions of socially and educationally backward classes. The first Commission was appointed under Kaka Kalekar in 1953 and second Commission was headed by BP Mandal 1981 Commission. Now it was BP Mandal Commission which recommended 27% OBC reservation that was implemented by VPC government in 1990. So, who are backward classes of citizens? I just told you there is no clarity how to define a backward class if you look at Supreme Court judgments. In MR Balaji versus State of Masur, Supreme Court said caste is not the sole factor to determine backwardness. In the state of AP versus Balaram, Supreme Court said a caste can also be class that a caste as such may be socially and educationally backward. In a 1985 judgment of Kasi Vasanth Kumar, Supreme Court said backward classes should be comparable to Shedule caste and Shedule tribes in backwardness. And then the leading judgment, a 9 judge ben judgment of Supreme Court in Indra Swani versus Union of India, where Supreme Court said class here is not to be under restute in the Marxist sense. Backward class as a term is wider than socially and educationally backward class. And the court also said economic criterion alone cannot be the basis of backwardness. And the Supreme Court also said when we are providing reservations to backward classes, creamy layer is to be excluded. As you look at the judicial response to reservations, I think it is important that I take you to the very first case because it was a landmark case, it led to a constitutional amendment. So, we had in the history of reservations, discuss the reservation provided in the Madras' Presidency. So, there was a communal order of the government which prescribed the ratio by which government jobs were reserved for Brahmins, non-Brahms, Muslims, Anglo-Indians and Christians. So, there was reservation for almost everyone. It was implemented in 1927 and it was this GEO, which was challenged in the historic case of Champakam Durai Rajan, in less than a year and a half of the commencement of our constitution, not one or two, but as many as three judges, three of Madras High Court and seven of Supreme Court is stuck down reservation in educational institutions. Reservation in jobs is an enabling provision provided in Article 16, clause 4, but whether we can have reservation in educational institutions, in the admissions, there was no provision at that point of time and therefore, what happened after losing this legal battle, government brought in the first constitutional amendment to overturn this judgment. Interestingly, if you look at the facts of the case, Durai Rajan, who had done BA from Madras University and was keen to join MBBS, had not even applied for the course. Her grievance was merely speculative that since there is reservation, I may not get a seat. Though she was a Brahmin and there was a reservation for Brahmins as well. The simple argument was that communal GEO violated fundamental rights, provisions of articles 15 clause 1 and article 29 clause 2 that prohibit any discrimination only on the basis of caste, religion, sex, place of birth, language, etc. Government tried to justify its reservation policy on the basis of article 46, which we just discussed, which is a directive principle. The three judges in Madras High Court authored three opinions, they were unanimous in striking down reservation, but they gave different reasons. State immediately went in appeal to Supreme Court in Supreme Court seven judges, led by Chief Justice H. J. Karnia, heard the matter and again struck down this policy. Supreme Court also rejected the argument, central government's argument that this policy is legal because of article 46. On the simple logic, the directive principles are not enforceable and cannot prevail over fundamental rights. We will discuss the distinction between directive principles and fundamental rights in some other lecture. The court said it in explicit terms that directive principles had to confirm to and run subsidiary to the chapter of fundamental rights. What was government's response? They were protested in southern states as a result of this judgment and accordingly constitution was amended. An in article 15 clause four was inserted. What did it say? Nothing in article 15 or in clause two of article 29 shall prevent the state from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the schedule class and schedule tribes. It is this provision under which subsequently all reservation policies in admissions will be framed. How much reservation can be given? What is the quantum of reservation? First of all, you should understand there is no fundamental right to reservation. What article 15 clause four or article 16 clause four provide is simply this. If a state decides to make reservation, you cannot challenge it as violation of right to equality. So reservation is an enabling provision. If a state wants it, it can give it but there is no fundamental right for any reservation. We should also understand there is a myth many people think that reservation in jobs or reservation in admissions was confined to just first and years. No. That is reservation in legislature, in parliament and in assemblies. Here we are talking of a different kind of reservation. Constitution also does not tell us upper limit of reservation but Supreme Court has laid down consistently said that ordinarily reservation should not exceed more than 50 percent. Because Supreme Court believes that to have efficiency in administration article 335 which I just read to you at least 50 percent see it should be available to general candidates. We should also understand there cannot be any reservation on religious grounds. Thus the Muslim reservation in Andhra Pradesh and a minority reservation within 27 percent OBC reservation were also struck down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Now how was OBC reservation in admissions implemented? A constitutional amendment was again made and a new clause was inserted clause 5 in article 15. What did it provide? Nothing in this article or sub clause G of clause 1 of article 19 shall prevent the state from making any special provision by law for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the schedule class or the schedule tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions. Including private educational institutions whether aided or unaided by the state other than the minority educational institutions provided in article 30. So this 93rd constitutional amendment is talking of giving another enabling power to the state to provide for reservation in admissions for any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens including private educational institutions. Central government also enacted central educational institutions reservation in admissions act 2006 which provided for 27 percent reservation in central institutions. That means central universities, IITs, IMs etc. Now here so far we were talking of reservation in admissions of schedule class, schedule tribes and backward classes those who are socially and educationally backward. In 2019 a constitutional amendment was made and clause 6 was inserted in article 15 which provided nothing in this article or clause sub clause G of clause 1 of article 19 or clause 2 of article 29 shall prevent the state from making any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses 4 and 5. So now for the first time an economic criterion of reservation is introduced for classes other than SCs and STs and BCs and this provision also provided that this reservation will be in addition to existing reservation subject to maximum of 10 percent of total seats in each category. OBC reservation was 27 percent. Now this reservation for economically backward classes upper limit is 10 percent. Can reservation be given in promotions? With the brief answer is yes as the law stands today. Now reservation in promotions for SCs and STs was introduced in April 1978 for the class 1 jobs. Indian courts did not favorably consider reservation in promotion they favored reservation in the initial appointment. Thus in CA Rajindran, Supreme Court was considering a 1963 notification of the government providing there shall be no reservation in promotions for class 1 and class 2 positions. A 5 judge bench headed by CJA K&1 Chu upheld this policy that there will be no reservation for class 1 and class 2. In 1992 a 9 judge bench which looked basically the Mandal Commission reservation OBC reservation again said that in future there will be no reservation in promotions. But ultimately in 2000 a constitutional amendment was made reservation in promotion was brought back. In 2006 in M Nagraj's judgment Supreme Court said state is not bound to provide for reservation in promotions. But if it wants to do so it must meet the requirement of collection of quantifiable data on three facets one backwardness of the class two in adequacy of representation and three general efficiency of services not affected. So if you want to give reservation to SCs and STs or others in promotions collect data quantifiable data to prove that they are backward to prove that they have inadequate representation and to prove that this reservation will not adversely affect the efficiency of services. There was a huge debate on this judgment many people wanted it be reviewed a five judge bench of Supreme Court in journal thing in 2018 rejected the review but it modified P Nagraj's judgment by saying for SCs and STs there is no need to collect quantifiable data of their backwardness. The mere fact that SCs and STs are included in the presidential order will be taken as enough proof of their backwardness. So what did we learn today? Reservation is not negation of equality. It goes beyond formal equality. It promotes substantive equality. Substantive equality may require classification. Substantive equality may require differential treatment. Reservation promotes diversity. The diversity of the society must be reflected in all institutions at least the public institutions. There is no fundamental right to reservation and there is no constitutionally prescribed upper limit of reservation. In the next lecture we would talk about freedom of speech and expression. Thank you very much. Dhanneva. ---  *Disclaimer: I am not asserting any claim over this content. The content is entirely from the Ministry of Law & Justice and NALSAR University of Law's joint online course on the Indian Constitution. My effort has been to make the transcript available for people like myself who prefer to read or quote it rather than to listen. This is part of my public self-archiving project. For more details, see [notes.daktre.com](https://notes.daktre.com) or [daktre.com](https://daktre.com).* Last updated: 2026-02-21 22:24