India's reservation system in government employment remains one of the most widely discussed and closely monitored policies in the country. Designed to provide representation to historically disadvantaged communities, the framework carves out specific quotas across central and state government positions, and its details continue to evolve with each policy revision.
Under the current structure, 15 per cent of central government posts are reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), while 7.5 per cent is set aside for Scheduled Tribes (ST). Other Backward Classes (OBC) receive a 27 per cent quota, bringing the total reserved share to nearly 49.5 per cent of all government positions. The remaining seats are open to general category candidates.
A significant development came in 2019, when the Supreme Court upheld the 10 per cent Economic Weaker Sections (EWS) quota, effective from January 2020. This brought the total reserved proportion to approximately 59.5 per cent, marking the first time an economic-based criterion was added to India's reservation framework, which had traditionally been grounded in caste-based disadvantage.
In addition to these categories, certain constituencies provide reservations for persons with benchmark disabilities — currently at 5 per cent across all categories, to be distributed proportionally among SC, ST, OBC, and EWS. There is also a separate provision for ex-servicemen and widows of freedom fighters in select recruitments.
State governments maintain their own reservation structures, which can differ from the central pattern. Some states have introduced additional sub-quotas within the OBC category or have elevated the overall reservation percentage beyond the central cap of 50 per cent, arguing that special circumstances warrant greater representation.
The legal foundation of India's reservation policy traces back to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which empower the state to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes. Over the decades, numerous petitions have challenged the periphery and depth of these quotas, but the basic structure has remained largely intact, with only incremental adjustments such as the introduction of the EWS category.
While the system is credited with bringing marginalised communities into the administrative fold, it continues to face criticism from various quarters — some argue the ceiling should be higher, while others contend that the inclusion of EWS dilutes the original intent of affirmative action.
