• The Centre announced a 27-per cent quota for OBCs and 10 per cent reservation for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in the All-India Quota (AIQ) scheme for undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental courses from the current academic year, 2021-22.

• This decision would benefit nearly 1,500 OBC students in MBBS and 2,500 OBC students in post-graduation and also around 550 EWS students in MBBS and around 1,000 EWS students in post-graduation, the health ministry said. 

• Over the last six years, the number of MBBS seats in the country has increased by 56 per cent from 54,348 in 2014 to 84,649 in 2020 and that of PG seats has gone up by 80 per cent from 30,191 in 2014 to 54,275 in 2020.

• In the same period, 179 new medical colleges have been established and the country currently has 558 (289 government and 269 private) medical colleges. 

What is All-India Quota (AIQ) scheme?

• The AIQ scheme was introduced in 1986 under the Supreme Court’s directions to provide for domicile-free merit-based opportunities to students from any state aspiring to study in a good medical college in another state.

• The All-India Quota consists of 15 per cent of the total available UG seats and 50 per cent of the total available PG seats in government medical colleges.

• Initially, there was no reservation in the AIQ scheme up to 2007.

• In 2007, the Supreme Court introduced 15 per cent reservation for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and a 7.5-per cent quota for the Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the scheme.

• When the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act became effective in 2007, providing for a uniform 27 per cent reservation to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), the same was implemented in all the central educational institutions such as the Safdarjung Hospital, the Lady Hardinge Medical College, the Aligarh Muslim University and the Banaras Hindu University. 

• However, it was not extended to the AIQ seats of the state medical and dental colleges.

• OBC students from across the country shall now be able to take the benefit of this reservation in the AIQ scheme to compete for seats in any state. Being a central scheme, the Central List of OBCs shall be used for the purpose.

• In order to provide benefits to students belonging to the EWS category in admission to higher educational institutions, a Constitutional amendment was made in 2019, which enabled the provision of 10 per cent reservation for the category.

• Accordingly, the number of seats in the medical and dental colleges was increased over the next two years (2019-20 and 2020-21) to accommodate this additional 10 per cent EWS reservation so that the total number of seats available for the unreserved category does not reduce.

• In the AIQ seats, however, this benefit was not extended so far.

• Therefore, along with the 27 per cent reservation for OBCs, 10 per cent reservation for EWS is also being extended in AIQ seats for all the undergraduate/postgraduate medical/dental courses from the current academic year 2021-22.

Evolution of reservation system for Backward Classes

Reservation for Backward Classes (BCs) was introduced even many years before Independence in most of the area comprising the presidencies and princely states south of the Vindhyas. 

The process gathered momentum in course of the censuses from 1881 to 1941. The Backward Classes movement first gathered momentum in south India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where reservation was introduced much before Independence. 

The Indian Constitution through the Preamble envisages the Indian Republic to achieve the objective of securing to its citizens social, economic and political justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It also elaborates the methodology to be followed for reaching this goal of social justice. 

Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins upon the State not to deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of laws. The principle of “right to equality” is further reiterated in positive and affirmative terms in Articles 15 to 18. 

Article 15 envisages not to discriminate against any citizen and under clause (5) of Article 15, the State is empowered to make a special provision by law for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in the matter of admissions to educational institutions. 

Special care was taken to declare equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment by Article 16. Clause (1) of this Article declares that in the matter of public employment or appointment to any office under the State, all citizens of this country shall have equal opportunity. 

At the same time, Clause (4) declares that nothing in the said Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services under the State. 

First Backward Classes Commission

The Other Backward Classes (OBCs) have historically suffered social and educational backwardness. ‘Backward Classes’ constitute such classes or citizens, other than the SCs and STs.

In view of Article 16(4) of the Constitution and in response to demands for reservation and other benefits for Backward Classes in other parts of India and in the Centre, the government appointed a Backward Classes Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution on January 29, 1953. 

The Commission, popularly known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, was required "to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to remove difficulties and to improve their conditions." 

The panel prepared a list of 2,399 backward castes/communities for the entire country and 837 of those were classified as ‘most backward’.

The Commission submitted its report on March 30, 1955. It was considered by the government for over five years, but was rejected in 1961. 

Second Backward Classes Commission

The Centre appointed the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) under Article 340 on January 1, 1979 to investigate the conditions of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes and recommend the criteria for defining such classes of citizens, steps to be taken for their advancement and examine the desirability or otherwise of making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of such backward classes of citizens which are not adequately represented in public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any state. 

The Commission submitted its report on December 31, 1980.

The Mandal Commission had estimated the OBC population at 52 per cent of the total population.

The first tangible step for the implementation of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission’s report was taken in 1990. It was in August 1990 that the government took the historic decision to introduce reservation of 27 per cent for Backward Classes on the basis of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations. 

This was announced in the Parliament by then Prime Minister V.P. Singh on August 7, 1990. 

Formal orders were issued thereafter providing reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) of 27 per cent of the vacancies filled by direct recruitment in civil posts and services under the central government and Public Sector Undertakings and financial institutions for SEBCs. 

A number of writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court questioning the order along with applications for staying it. 

The Supreme Court in its landmark judgment on November 16, 1992 in writ petition — Indra Sawhney and Others vs Union of India, popularly known as the Mandal Case — held the government order valid and enforceable subject to the exclusion to the socially advanced persons/sections from the notified Backward Classes. It directed that the implementation of the order shall be subject to the exclusion of the socially advanced members/sections (‘creamy layer’ as it was termed) of the Backward Classes. 

The members of the Other Backward Classes who fall in ‘creamy layer’ shall not get the benefit of reservation.

It also capped caste-based reservation at 50 per cent, ruling that “no provision of reservation or preference can be so vigorously pursued as to destroy the very concept of equality”. The limit could be exceeded only in compelling circumstances, it added.

In Tamil Nadu the reservation is set at 69 per cent. The state Assembly passed the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993, to keep its reservation limit intact at 69 per cent. The law was subsequently included into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution through the 76th Constitution Amendment passed by Parliament in 1994.

Some important court verdicts regarding reservation

1) State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madras High Court, which struck down a government order of 1927 regarding caste-based reservation in government jobs and educational institutions.

2) Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992)

The nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 6:3 majority held that the decision of the Union government to reserve 27 per cent government jobs for backward classes — with elimination of creamy layer — is constitutionally valid.

3) M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006)

A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court validated Parliament’s decision to extend reservations for SCs and STs to include promotions with three conditions:

State has to provide proof for the backwardness of the class benefitting from the reservation.

State has to collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment.

State has to show how reservations in promotions would further administrative efficiency.

4) Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

The Supreme Court held that the government need not collect quantifiable data to demonstrate backwardness of public employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) to provide reservations for them in promotions.

Recently the Supreme Court upheld Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2018. The enactment provides for consequential seniority to SCs and STs with retrospective effect from 1978.

Consequential seniority allows reserved category candidates to retain seniority over general category peers. If a reserved category candidate is promoted before a general category candidate because of reservation in promotion, then for subsequent promotion the reserved candidate retains seniority. In effect, consequential seniority undoes the ‘catch-up rule’ that allows general category candidates to catch-up to  reserved category candidates.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store