Reservations in India address the social fact of caste, not the economic fact of poverty — and conflating the two undermines the constitutional vision of substantive equality. Crit

GS2 Indian Constitution
Reservations in India address the social fact of caste, not the economic fact of poverty — and conflating the two undermines the constitutional vision of substantive equality. Critically examine.

Examine

  • 10 marks
  • 8 min
  • 150 words
  • Medium

PressReader

Read article →

Reservations remedy caste-based subordination — not poverty. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) embody substantive equality. Conflating caste with poverty distorts this constitutional vision.

Reservation as a Caste Remedy

  • Intra-SC inequality is real → Davinder Singh (2024) legitimately permits sub-classification
  • OBC creamy layer acknowledged partial economic dimension → Indra Sawhney (1992)

Income Cannot Measure Caste Disadvantage

  • Presidential List → never poverty-conditioned → conditioned on caste-based subordination
  • Ambedkar (1936): "Educated Mahar still cannot open a shop without customers leaving when his caste is known" → income ≠ social emancipation
  • Nishith Prakash: Elite capture = statistical myth → benefits concentrated among less-educated rural SC members
  • Jaishri Patil (2021): ₹6L/year SC family ≠ ₹6L/year forward caste family → same ceiling, entirely different social reality
  • Rohith Nathan (2026): Parental salary alone cannot determine social disadvantage

Way Forward Poverty-targeting converts a rights-based instrument into a welfare scheme. Sub-classification — not creamy layer exclusion — is the constitutionally correct path. Parliament must seal this distinction before obiter dicta hardens into precedent.