Reservation: The Constitutional Scheme

In one line

Every reservation provision in the Constitution is an ENABLING clause, and every one of them was inserted by amendment except article 16(4).

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the constitutional scheme of reservation rests on enabling clauses. Article 16(4), which was in the Constitution as adopted, permits the State to make provision for the 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. Article 15(4) was inserted by the First Amendment 1951 after Champakam Dorairajan, article 16(4A) by the Seventy-seventh Amendment 1995 after Indra Sawhney, article 16(4B) by the Eighty-first Amendment 2000, article 15(5) by the Ninety-third Amendment 2005, and articles 15(6) and 16(6) by the One Hundred and Third Amendment 2019. Article 335 requires the claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.

The clauses, in order of insertion

Article 16(4), original. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the 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.

Four things are built into it. The beneficiary is a "backward class of citizens", not a caste as such. The trigger is inadequate representation IN THE SERVICES, which is a factual question. The satisfaction is "in the opinion of the State", so it is a matter for the executive subject to judicial review. And it is an enabling clause: nothing compels a State to make a reservation.

Article 15(4), First Amendment 1951. Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

It was inserted because of a case. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan held that article 29(2) admits of no exception and that a Directive Principle cannot override a fundamental right, so the Madras communal order was void. Parliament answered within a year. Note that article 15(4) expressly overrides article 29(2) as well as article 15.

Article 16(4A), Seventy-seventh Amendment 1995. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services. The words "with consequential seniority" were added by the Eighty-fifth Amendment 2001 with retrospective effect.