New Delhi: In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that while reservation policies are a tool for social advancement, they do not constitute a fundamental right under the Constitution. This decision underscores the discretionary power of the state in implementing reservation policies, emphasizing that such measures are not obligatory but must be justified with valid reasoning when applied.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta articulated this legal stance while adjudicating a case concerning the recruitment process for Class IV positions by the Deputy Commissioner in Palamu, Jharkhand. The bench emphasized that although the state is not mandated to provide reservations, any decision to deny such provisions must be backed by sound reasoning and relevant data. This ensures that the state’s discretion is exercised judiciously and transparently.
The Court highlighted that Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Indian Constitution empower the state to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens. However, these articles are enabling provisions, granting the state the authority to implement reservations but not imposing an obligation to do so. This distinction clarifies that reservations are a facilitative measure rather than an inherent right.
Legal experts believe this ruling reinforces the balance between affirmative action and administrative discretion. While it affirms that reservation is not an inherent right, it also prevents the government from withdrawing or altering reservation policies without due process.
This verdict may have significant implications for future debates on reservation policies, particularly in the context of demands for increased quotas from various communities. Political analysts suggest that state governments may now have to undertake more rigorous data collection and policy assessments before making changes to reservation frameworks.
The ruling has drawn mixed reactions from political parties and social groups. While some have welcomed it as a step toward ensuring transparency in reservation policies, others argue that it may make it more challenging for marginalized communities to secure their rightful representation.
