NC Must Deliver on Its Promise of Reviewing New Reservation Policy

By Ummar Jamal

The National Conference’s in its assemblyelection manifesto among other things  promised people of J&K that if elected to power they will review the new reservation policy in Jammu and Kashmir. As per its election manifesto, the party promised to allocate reservations in proportion to population demographics, a move seen as essential by many of the region’s youth who feel that the current system is misaligned with the principle of equitable opportunities. Now that the party has assumed power with a resounding mandate, the onus is on them to fulfill this pledge, not merely as an electoral promise but as a matter of justice and fairness.

Pausing all recruitments until review of New reservation policy

Recently, Sakeena Itoo, the Minister for Health and Medical Education, Social Welfare, and Education, announced the approval of advertisements for 575 lecturer positions in various streams within the School Education Department of Jammu and Kashmir. While this development is welcome move, I believe it is essential to pause all recruitments until a comprehensive review of the new reservation policy is conducted and the previous reservation policy is restored.

Continuing recruitment under the new reservation framework would significantly disadvantage students of open merit, who will find their opportunities limited due to the changes the reservation quotas. The new policy has raised concerns about fairness and merit. Rushing forward with recruitments would undermine the interests of deserving candidates. Therefore, I strongly advocate for a halt to all recruitments until this vital review is completed, safeguarding the integrity of the selection process and the future of our students.

Balancing affirmative action and merit

The essence of reservations in India, as enshrined in the Constitution, was to rectify historical injustices and uplift marginalized communities. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, one of the primary architects of the Constitution, emphasized that reservations should ensure fair opportunities for backward classes without undermining meritocracy. On November 30, 1948, during the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. Ambedkar warned future governments about excessive reservation quotas, suggesting that while affirmative action is necessary, it must not compromise equality of opportunity.

The latest developments in Jammu and Kashmir’s reservation policy have brought these concerns to the forefront. The recent decision to increase the Scheduled Tribe (ST) quota by 10% and the Other Backward Classes (OBC) quota by 4%, raising the total reservation to 70%, has been met with skepticism. The move, which also introduced four new tribes to the ST category, has led many to question whether this increase aligns with the foundational principles of India’s reservation system. A reservation policy which fails to maintain proportionality risks becoming arbitrary and unfair, particularly when it affects the prospects of those outside reserved categories.

The addition of 10% reservation for the Pahari community and three other tribes has raised concerns about the criteria used for reservation allocation. The lack of clear evidence regarding widespread disadvantage among the Paharis and the other three tribes makes the rationale for this increase questionable. Reservation policies should ideally be based on objective indicators of backwardness and economic need, and the absence of such criteria weakens the legitimacy of this recent decision.

Another key issue is the cumulative effect of reservations on the open merit category. With 70% of seats now reserved, the open merit pool—comprising about 69% of the population—has been limited to just 30% of available positions. This effectively reduces opportunities for a significant portion of the population that does not benefit from reservations. Given that the right to equality is a fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution, any policy that excessively restricts access to jobs or educational opportunities based on caste or community rather than individual merit raises concerns about fairness.

50 percent cap

Prior to these recent changes, Jammu and Kashmir’s reservation framework was already complex. It included quotas for various communities and groups, such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), OBCs, residents along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), Residents of Backward Areas (RBA), Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Ex-servicemen, and Persons with Disabilities (PWD). Even with existing reservations totaling 56%, the decision to increase reservations further disrupts the equilibrium, exceeding the 50% cap imposed by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India case of 1992.

The Supreme Court’s ruling In the Indra Sawhney the Supreme Court established a judicially mandated ceiling of 50% for reservations, which could only be exceeded in exceptional circumstances, such as for extremely marginalized and remote communities. By raising Jammu and Kashmir’s quota to 70%, the recent policy shift has ignored this limit, potentially breaching constitutional guidelines. Additionally, the judiciary has reiterated the need to carefully evaluate any decision that surpasses this 50% ceiling. The absence of convincing evidence to justify the recent expansion calls into question the policy’s alignment with constitutional principles.

In other states, attempts to surpass the 50% cap have been met with legal challenges and, in several cases, struck down by the courts. For instance, the Maratha reservation in Maharashtra and similar reservation laws in Chhattisgarh, Orissa, and Rajasthan faced judicial scrutiny. The courts have consistently underscored the need to adhere to the principles of equality and merit, even when implementing affirmative action policies.

The judiciary’s interpretation of reservations underscores the necessity of prudence when expanding quotas. Courts have argued that policies should be rooted in clear, demonstrable evidence of systemic disadvantage. Without this, the rationale behind any significant increase in reservations is open to question. The decision to allocate a 10% quota for four new tribes, without adequate proof of widespread socio-economic disadvantage, risks being perceived as preferential rather than equitable.

Merit over politicization

The new reservation policy has ignited debates about the politicization of reservations. Over the years, reservations have increasingly become a tool for garnering political support, sometimes at the expense of merit and fairness. This trend has led to the distortion of the reservation system, which was originally designed to address historical inequities and create opportunities for disadvantaged groups. The recent increase in Jammu and Kashmir’s reservation quota, some argue, may be yet another example of using reservations to fulfill political objectives rather than social justice.

It is crucial to recognize that reservations, when implemented judiciously, can significantly empower marginalized groups. They provide a path for historically disadvantaged communities to access better educational and employment opportunities, thereby helping to mitigate socio-economic disparities. However, the effectiveness of reservation policies depends on their ability to target the genuinely disadvantaged and uplift them meaningfully. When reservation policies become disproportionately large, they risk undermining the very principles of inclusivity and equality they seek to uphold.

Tail piece

The current reservation scenario in Jammu and Kashmir reflects a need to revisit the balance between reservation and meritocracy. The foundational intent of affirmative action was never to supplant merit but to complement it by creating equitable opportunities. Yet, as reservation quotas increase, open merit candidates find themselves with fewer opportunities, which can breed disillusionment among youth.

Going forward, the new government must  restore the old reservation policy. Rather than allowing broad-stroke increases in quotas to continue, they should consider socioeconomic surveys, data analysis, and public consultations to determine which communities genuinely require affirmative support. This would help to maintain a balance that respects both the ideals of social justice and the right to equal opportunity.

As Dr. Ambedkar envisioned, reservations should work to uplift marginalized communities without compromising on merit. A well-balanced approach that respects constitutional limits and prioritizes genuine need is essential to maintain public trust and achieve the true purpose of affirmative action.

Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer

• Ummar Jamal is a Kashmir based columnist and National President of J&K students Association. He tweets at ummar_jamal and can be reached at [email protected]  

Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now

MONTHLY	Rs 100
YEARLY	Rs 1000
LIFETIME	Rs 10000

CLICK FOR DETAILS