The Rajasthan Government last week stoked another storm in the reservation debate by passing two bills giving reservation to Economically Backward Classes, or EBCs, and Special Backward Classes, or SBCs, in education and jobs. Here is a brief look at what the bills contain and where they could be headed.
What are these two bills and what do they contain?
The first bill is called the Rajasthan Economically Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State) Bill, 2015.
It seeks to provide reservations for the poor or EBCs among those belonging to the general category at present. According to the preamble of the bill, “the poorest classes of the unreserved categories, due to their economic weakness, are unable to compete with the affluent classes”, which is they they need reservations.
Section 3 of the bill reserves 14% of the total seats in educational institutions while Section 4 reserves 14% of all appointments under State services for the EBCs. However, it also specifically mentions that no reservation shall be given in matters of promotion, unlike those available to people of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The biggest drawback of the bill is that it contains no indication on how these EBCs will be identified. The definition under Section 2 only states that they shall include “persons not included in any other category of reservation”.
The second bill is called Rajasthan Special Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State) Bill, 2015.
It extends reservation to a number of “educationally and socially” backward classes not included in the Other Backward Classses category. According to the Bill’s preamble and definition clause, these include the Gurjar, Banjara, Lohar, raika and Gadariya castes.
Section 3 of the bill provides these SBCs 5% reservation in educational institutions while Section 4 extends 5% reservation in State Government jobs. Once again, it is clarified that this reservation does not extend to promotion matters.
What is the historical and political context of these bills?
The previous Bharatiya Janata Party government in Rajasthan had passed a similar law in 2008 that contained near-identical provisions extending reservation for the Economically Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes. But when the state government tried to make it operational in 2010 it was challenged in the Rajasthan High Court, which granted a stay in 2013.
The present bills repeal the previous legislation and replace it with two separate enactments.
While the SBC reservation bill is the result of a long-standing Gurjar agitation, the EBC bill has come in the backdrop of a long standing debate within the BJP and the larger Sangh Parivar regarding the need to make economic status and not caste history the basis for reservations.
Curiously, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat made a statement calling for a review of the reservation policy just one day before the bills were passed. However, there is nothing to suggest a link between the timing of Bhagwat’s statement and the passing of this legislation in Rajasthan.
What are the likely consequences of this legislation?
Rajasthan already has 49% reservation of seats in education and jobs which is distributed among the SCs, STs and OBCs, as well as 1% reservation which was extended by the state government to Gurjars and other SBCs in 2010 after the previous legislation was stayed. This brings the total up to the maximum 50% allowed by the Supreme Court under the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India case in 1992. If the present bills are implemented, it will bring the total reserved seats to 68%, making it very likely to be struck down if challenged in court.
To save it from that eventuality, the Rajasthan Assembly passed a resolution asking the Centre to place this legislation in the Ninth Schedule. Under Article 31B of the Constitution any legislation placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be declared void on the ground that it abridges or is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights. It is not yet clear, however, how the Centre will respond to this request.
Does any state in India have reservations exceeding 50%?
Tamil Nadu is the only state providing reservation in education and jobs up to 69% right from 1980. After the apex court’s 1992 judgment in Indra Sawhney case, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed an act in 1993 comprehensively laying down its reservation policy, which again reiterated a total reservation of 69% seats in education and employment for SCs, STs and Backward Classes. This act was then included in the 9th Schedule by Parliament via the 76th Amendment in 1994.
However, in a 2012 judgment (SV Joshi v Union of India) the Supreme Court clarified that the Tamil Nadu legislation was not beyond judicial review, and asked the Tamil Nadu government to place “quantifiable data” before the State Backward Class Commission justifying the need for its expanded quota (the Tamil Nadu government has repeatedly cited its 87% population of Backward Classes as justification).
However, a final decision is yet to be given in the case by the apex court.
A similar law was passed by Karnataka in 1994, but the Supreme Court ordered a stay on its operation. In 2008 the Orissa Assembly had enacted a law that raised its reservation quota to 66%, but it was struck down by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in 2013.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
What are these two bills and what do they contain?
The first bill is called the Rajasthan Economically Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State) Bill, 2015.
It seeks to provide reservations for the poor or EBCs among those belonging to the general category at present. According to the preamble of the bill, “the poorest classes of the unreserved categories, due to their economic weakness, are unable to compete with the affluent classes”, which is they they need reservations.
Section 3 of the bill reserves 14% of the total seats in educational institutions while Section 4 reserves 14% of all appointments under State services for the EBCs. However, it also specifically mentions that no reservation shall be given in matters of promotion, unlike those available to people of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The biggest drawback of the bill is that it contains no indication on how these EBCs will be identified. The definition under Section 2 only states that they shall include “persons not included in any other category of reservation”.
The second bill is called Rajasthan Special Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State) Bill, 2015.
It extends reservation to a number of “educationally and socially” backward classes not included in the Other Backward Classses category. According to the Bill’s preamble and definition clause, these include the Gurjar, Banjara, Lohar, raika and Gadariya castes.
Section 3 of the bill provides these SBCs 5% reservation in educational institutions while Section 4 extends 5% reservation in State Government jobs. Once again, it is clarified that this reservation does not extend to promotion matters.
What is the historical and political context of these bills?
The previous Bharatiya Janata Party government in Rajasthan had passed a similar law in 2008 that contained near-identical provisions extending reservation for the Economically Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes. But when the state government tried to make it operational in 2010 it was challenged in the Rajasthan High Court, which granted a stay in 2013.
The present bills repeal the previous legislation and replace it with two separate enactments.
While the SBC reservation bill is the result of a long-standing Gurjar agitation, the EBC bill has come in the backdrop of a long standing debate within the BJP and the larger Sangh Parivar regarding the need to make economic status and not caste history the basis for reservations.
Curiously, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat made a statement calling for a review of the reservation policy just one day before the bills were passed. However, there is nothing to suggest a link between the timing of Bhagwat’s statement and the passing of this legislation in Rajasthan.
What are the likely consequences of this legislation?
Rajasthan already has 49% reservation of seats in education and jobs which is distributed among the SCs, STs and OBCs, as well as 1% reservation which was extended by the state government to Gurjars and other SBCs in 2010 after the previous legislation was stayed. This brings the total up to the maximum 50% allowed by the Supreme Court under the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India case in 1992. If the present bills are implemented, it will bring the total reserved seats to 68%, making it very likely to be struck down if challenged in court.
To save it from that eventuality, the Rajasthan Assembly passed a resolution asking the Centre to place this legislation in the Ninth Schedule. Under Article 31B of the Constitution any legislation placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be declared void on the ground that it abridges or is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights. It is not yet clear, however, how the Centre will respond to this request.
Does any state in India have reservations exceeding 50%?
Tamil Nadu is the only state providing reservation in education and jobs up to 69% right from 1980. After the apex court’s 1992 judgment in Indra Sawhney case, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed an act in 1993 comprehensively laying down its reservation policy, which again reiterated a total reservation of 69% seats in education and employment for SCs, STs and Backward Classes. This act was then included in the 9th Schedule by Parliament via the 76th Amendment in 1994.
However, in a 2012 judgment (SV Joshi v Union of India) the Supreme Court clarified that the Tamil Nadu legislation was not beyond judicial review, and asked the Tamil Nadu government to place “quantifiable data” before the State Backward Class Commission justifying the need for its expanded quota (the Tamil Nadu government has repeatedly cited its 87% population of Backward Classes as justification).
However, a final decision is yet to be given in the case by the apex court.
A similar law was passed by Karnataka in 1994, but the Supreme Court ordered a stay on its operation. In 2008 the Orissa Assembly had enacted a law that raised its reservation quota to 66%, but it was struck down by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in 2013.