India’s quota policy now like a swelling balloon: Supreme Court

Justice Mithal’s opinion highlighted skepticism about the efficacy and long-term consequences of reservations based solely on caste.

Justice Pankaj Mithal, while concurring with the majority view on sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), delivered a sharply critical opinion against the broader caste-based reservation policy in India, as he described the existing system as a “trap” that perpetuates division and dependency, rather than fostering genuine equality.

Justice Mithal also lamented the burden that the reservation policy has placed on the judiciary, noting that it has led to an “enormous” amount of litigation, particularly in the high courts and Supreme Court. (ANI)

His opinion, though in line with the majority on the issue at hand, emphasised that caste should no longer be the basis for reservation and that other criteria, such as economic status, living conditions and vocation, should be considered instead.

While calling for a periodical review of the reservation policy to ensure that it remains relevant and effective, justice Mithal also advocated for limiting reservation benefits to the first generation within a family, arguing that once a family has benefited from reservation, subsequent generations should not be eligible. This, he suggested, would prevent the creation of a “vested interest” in reservation and ensure that the benefits of social justice policies are more widely distributed.

“I would not be suggesting dismantling of an existing building without erecting a new one in its place which may prove to be more useful,” said the judge.

Justice Mithal’s opinion highlighted skepticism about the efficacy and long-term consequences of reservations based solely on caste. In his view, the policy, initially intended to uplift the marginalised, not only failed to achieve its intended goals of social and economic upliftment but also “revived casteism”.

The judge’s critique began with a historical overview of the reservation system, acknowledging its roots in the need for social justice before the judge underscored his view that while the intentions behind the policy could be noble, its implementation led to significant and unintended consequences.

Questioning the very premise of caste-based reservations, the judge regretted that the Constitution’s vision was for a casteless society, yet the reservation policy inadvertently entrenched caste divisions rather than dissolving them.

“With the adoption of the Constitution, we again tried to move into a casteless society but in the name of social welfare to uplift the depressed and the backward classes, we again fell into the trap of caste system. We gave privilege of reservation to the depressed or the backward class or the Scheduled Caste to bring about equality,” said justice Mithal.

Directing his criticism at the long-term sustainability of the reservation system, the judge said: “It is common understanding that what is conceded once to appease any class cannot be taken back. So are the benefits extended to the reserved category of persons under the Constitution. Each concession once made, just goes on swelling like a raisin/balloon. This actually happened with the policy of reservation also.”

He maintained that reservation is one of the modes of helping or uplifting the status of the OBCs/SCs/STs but anyone suggesting another or a better way of helping the so-called depressed classes or the downtrodden or the marginalised persons of the society is immediately pounced upon as “anti-Dalit”.

Justice Mithal also lamented the burden that the reservation policy has placed on the judiciary, noting that it has led to an “enormous” amount of litigation, particularly in the high courts and Supreme Court. He added that the policy’s piecemeal implementation has resulted in constant legal challenges, causing delays in recruitment and admissions processes and leading to a proliferation of stop-gap and ad-hoc appointments. These issues, the judge said, “could have been avoided if a robust reservation policy with a vision had been envisaged under the constitutional provisions in the very beginning instead of making piecemeal changes.”

Referring to social unrest that reservation policies have sparked over the years, justice Mithal recalled the widespread violence during the anti-Mandal Commission protests in 1990 and the student-led agitations against reservations in 2006. According to the judge, these events were “ample indication” of the deep divisions that reservation policies have created within Indian society, as he disapproved of focussing on caste as the primary criterion for reservation.

“The government has used caste as the basis for the upliftment rather than identifying the class of people on the basis of vocation or their social and economic conditions who actually require help to be promoted to the level of the forward class,” he held.

Justice Mithal further asserted that the reservation policy, while intended to uplift the most disadvantaged, has largely benefited those who are already relatively affluent or urbanised within the backward classes. Citing relevant statistics, he noted that most students from the most backward classes drop out of school before reaching high school, denying them the benefits of reservation at higher levels of education and employment.

“The statistics proves that the deprived and the marginalised persons have not been able to achieve the benefit of reservation 37 which is permissible at higher level as about 50% of the students from the most backward classes drop out of school before Class-V and 75% drop out before Class-VIII. The figure goes to even 95% when it comes to the level of high school. Thus, only the children of some of the castes, who are already affluent or urbanised, are able to obtain higher education and the benefits of reservation. This, the judge said, is evidence that the current system has failed to uplift those who are most in need,” rued the judge.