Caste census could change cap on reservations set by SC in '92

For decades now, the push for an increase in reservation, over and above a cap set by the Supreme Court in 1992, has come up against an immovable object in the form of constitutional courts.

- Abraham Thomas

NEW DELHI:

But given that the courts have insisted on quantifiable data to justify state action, the caste census announced by the Union government on Wednesday could change things.

In 1992, a landmark decision in the so-called Indira Sahwney case by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court laid down the rule that as a norm, reservation cannot exceed the 50% threshold. In the years since, laws by states and Centre providing reservation beyond this limit came to be challenged in the top court, and judicial decisions maintained the sanctity of the threshold. But even as the courts struck down these laws, they insisted on the need for benchmarks of backwardness and data on under-representation (if any). The Supreme Court itself has also played an active role in extending reservation for other backward classes to local bodies as well as for scheduled classes and tribes to promotions in government jobs.

In the 1992 case, the apex court was considering the constitutional validity of providing reservation to OBCs quantified at 27%, as recommended by the Mandal Commission, which estimated OBC population to be 52% in the country.

The court allowed reservation for OBCs with riders by seeking exclusion of the "creamy layer"--those affluent among them based on income and other indicators--and placing a cap on total reservation to not exceed 50% except in "extraordinary" situations. This cap comprised 15% reservation to SCs, 7.5% to STs and 27% to OBCs.

In 2006, the Supreme Court considered petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) in the Constitution providing reservation in promotion with consequential seniority in favour of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.