Article 15 and Affirmative Action: Are Reservations Still Relevant in India 2025?

The debate on Article 15 and affirmative action in 2025 questions whether reservations remain relevant in India amidst evolving social dynamics. This blog explores the legal framework, historical context, current challenges, and future relevance of affirmative action for legal professionals and judiciary aspirants.

Introduction

The intersection of Article 15 and affirmative action in 2025 remains a pivotal issue in India’s quest for social justice. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, while also allowing the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

This has led to affirmative action policies like reservations in education, employment, and politics, aimed at correcting historical injustices. However, as India evolves socially and economically in 2025, questions arise: Are reservations still relevant, or do they perpetuate division? For lawyers, legal professionals, and judiciary aspirants, understanding the Article 15 and affirmative action debate is crucial for engaging with constitutional law and social equity. This blog examines the legal framework, historical context, current challenges, and future relevance of reservations in India.

Join Telegram Community

Join WhatsApp Community

Explore Courses

1. Understanding Article 15: The Legal Framework

The Article 15 and affirmative action debate is rooted in the constitutional provision itself. Article 15(1) prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. However, Article 15(4) and Article 15(5), added through amendments, allow the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, STs, and women and children. These provisions form the legal basis for affirmative action policies, including:

Reservations in Education: Quotas for SCs, STs, and OBCs in public educational institutions.
Employment Quotas: Reservations in government jobs to ensure representation of marginalized groups.
Political Reservations: Reserved seats for SCs and STs in legislative bodies, as mandated by Article 330 and Article 332.

The objective of these measures is to address historical inequalities and ensure substantive equality, as opposed to mere formal equality. However, the Article 15 and affirmative action debate centers on whether these policies remain effective and relevant in 2025, given India’s changing socio-economic landscape.

2. Historical Context: The Evolution of Reservations in India

The Article 15 and affirmative action framework has its roots in India’s history of social stratification:

Pre-Independence Era: The caste system entrenched inequalities, with Dalits and Adivasis facing systemic exclusion from education, employment, and social spaces. Early reformers like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar advocated for affirmative action to uplift these communities.
Constitutional Provisions: The Constitution, adopted in 1950, included reservations for SCs and STs in education and jobs, initially intended as a temporary measure for 10 years. However, these provisions have been extended repeatedly due to persistent inequalities.
Mandal Commission (1980): The Mandal Commission recommended reservations for OBCs, leading to a 27% quota in government jobs and education, implemented in the 1990s. This sparked widespread protests but was upheld by the Supreme Court, marking a significant expansion of affirmative action.
Recent Amendments: The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among the general category, reflecting a shift toward economic criteria alongside caste-based reservations.

This historical evolution sets the stage for the Article 15 and affirmative action debate, as India in 2025 grapples with the legacy of caste while addressing new forms of inequality.

3. Landmark Judgments Shaping Affirmative Action

The Article 15 and affirmative action debate has been shaped by several landmark judgments:

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): The Supreme Court struck down caste-based reservations in educational institutions, leading to the First Constitutional Amendment, which added Article 15(4) to allow special provisions for backward classes.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission Case): The court upheld the 27% OBC reservation but capped total reservations at 50% and introduced the “creamy layer” concept, excluding affluent OBCs from benefits to ensure aid reaches the most disadvantaged.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): The court ruled that reservations in promotions for SCs and STs are permissible under Article 15, but the State must provide data showing backwardness, underrepresentation, and administrative efficiency, ensuring a balance with equality principles.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022): The Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Amendment for EWS reservations, affirming that economic criteria can be a basis for affirmative action under Article 15, though it raised concerns about breaching the 50% cap.

These judgments highlight the judiciary’s role in refining affirmative action policies, but they also fuel the Article 15 and affirmative action debate by exposing tensions between equality and equity.

4. Are Reservations Still Relevant in 2025?

The Article 15 and affirmative action debate in 2025 centers on the relevance of reservations amidst India’s evolving social and economic landscape:

Arguments for Continued Relevance:

Persistent Inequalities: Despite progress, SCs, STs, and OBCs continue to face discrimination in education, employment, and social spaces. For example, Dalits still experience high dropout rates and limited access to quality education, justifying the need for reservations.
Structural Barriers: Historical disadvantages, such as lack of generational wealth or social capital, mean that marginalized groups often cannot compete on an equal footing without affirmative action.
Representation Matters: Reservations ensure political and administrative representation, as seen in reserved constituencies, which empower marginalized communities to influence policy.
Judicial Support: The Janhit Abhiyan ruling reflects the judiciary’s recognition that affirmative action remains necessary to address new forms of inequality, such as economic deprivation.

Arguments Against Continued Relevance:

Perpetuation of Caste Divisions: Critics argue that caste-based reservations reinforce caste identities, hindering social integration. In 2025, with growing urbanization and inter-caste interactions, some question whether caste should remain the primary criterion.
Creamy Layer Exploitation: The “creamy layer” exclusion is often poorly implemented, allowing affluent members of reserved categories to benefit, while the most disadvantaged remain underserved.
Economic Disparities as a New Focus: The EWS reservation highlights that economic disadvantage cuts across castes, suggesting a shift toward income-based affirmative action rather than caste-based quotas.
Meritocracy Concerns: Opponents claim that reservations compromise merit in education and jobs, though studies show that reserved category candidates often perform comparably when given equal opportunities.

These arguments reflect the complexity of the Article 15 and affirmative action debate, as India in 2025 navigates the balance between historical justice and modern realities.

5. Challenges in Implementing Affirmative Action

The Article 15 and affirmative action framework faces several challenges in 2025:

Implementation Gaps: Despite legal provisions, reservations are often not fully implemented. For example, many reserved seats in higher education remain vacant due to lack of awareness or financial support for candidates.
Backlash and Social Tensions: Reservations continue to face resistance from general category groups, who feel disadvantaged, leading to protests and legal challenges, as seen during the Mandal Commission implementation.
Data Deficiency: The lack of updated caste census data hampers effective policy-making. The last comprehensive caste census was in 1931, making it difficult to assess the current socio-economic status of various groups.
Intersectional Inequalities: Women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and religious minorities within reserved categories often face compounded discrimination, which reservations alone cannot address without intersectional policies.
Urban-Rural Divide: In 2025, urban areas may see reduced caste-based discrimination due to globalization, while rural areas lag, creating uneven benefits from affirmative action.

These challenges highlight the need for a nuanced approach to ensure that Article 15 and affirmative action policies remain effective and equitable.

6. Comparative International Analysis

The Article 15 and affirmative action debate can benefit from international perspectives:

United States: The U.S. has used affirmative action in education and employment to address racial inequalities, but recent Supreme Court rulings have scaled back race-based admissions, favoring race-neutral policies. India could explore similar economic-based criteria while retaining caste considerations.
South Africa: Post-apartheid South Africa implemented affirmative action to address racial disparities, focusing on employment equity and education. Its emphasis on monitoring outcomes offers lessons for India to ensure reservations achieve their intended goals.
Brazil: Brazil’s affirmative action includes racial quotas in universities, which have increased access for Afro-Brazilians but also sparked debates about racial identity. India could learn from Brazil’s efforts to address intersectional identities within affirmative action.
Malaysia: Malaysia’s Bumiputera policy provides economic and educational benefits to the majority Malay population, but it has been criticized for alienating minorities. India must ensure that reservations do not exacerbate social divisions, as seen in Malaysia.

These international models suggest that India can refine its Article 15 and affirmative action policies by balancing caste-based and economic criteria while monitoring outcomes to ensure equity.

7. The Future of Reservations in India 2025 and Beyond

The Article 15 and affirmative action debate in 2025 points to several future directions:

Shift Toward Economic Criteria: The EWS reservation signals a potential shift toward economic-based affirmative action, which could complement caste-based policies to address broader inequalities.
Data-Driven Policies: Conducting a new caste census would provide updated data to assess the socio-economic status of various groups, ensuring reservations target the most disadvantaged.
Intersectional Approach: Policies should address intersectional inequalities, such as those faced by Dalit women or transgender individuals, to make affirmative action more inclusive.
Focus on Education and Skill Development: In 2025, reservations could be paired with initiatives like scholarships, mentorship programs, and skill development to empower reserved category candidates beyond quotas.
Judicial Oversight: The judiciary will continue to play a key role, as seen in M. Nagaraj, ensuring that affirmative action aligns with constitutional principles of equality and fairness.

The future of Article 15 and affirmative action in India depends on adapting these policies to contemporary needs while preserving their core objective of social justice.

Conclusion

The Article 15 and affirmative action debate in 2025 reflects the ongoing struggle to balance historical justice with modern realities in India. Article 15 provides the legal foundation for reservations, which have been instrumental in uplifting marginalized communities, as affirmed by landmark judgments like Indra Sawhney and Janhit Abhiyan. However, challenges such as implementation gaps, social tensions, and the need for updated data highlight the complexities of affirmative action.

International models from the US, South Africa, and Brazil offer insights into refining these policies, while the rise of economic-based reservations signals a potential shift in focus. For legal professionals and judiciary aspirants, understanding the Article 15 and affirmative action debate is crucial for engaging with constitutional law and advocating for equitable policies. By adopting data-driven, intersectional, and inclusive approaches, India can ensure that reservations remain relevant in 2025, fulfilling the constitutional promise of equality for all.

Want to master the Article 15 and affirmative action debate for your Judiciary Exam? Join Doon Law Mentor’s Courses for expert guidance and study materials! Follow @doonlawmentor on Instagram for the latest updates!

FAQs

What is the Article 15 and affirmative action debate about?
The Article 15 and affirmative action debate questions whether reservations remain relevant in India in 2025, given evolving social and economic dynamics.
What does Article 15 say about affirmative action?
Article 15 prohibits discrimination but allows special provisions for backward classes, SCs, STs, and women, forming the basis for reservations.
What did the Indra Sawhney case decide?
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld OBC reservations, capped total quotas at 50%, and introduced the “creamy layer” exclusion.
Why are reservations still relevant in 2025?
Persistent inequalities, structural barriers, and the need for representation justify reservations, as seen in continued discrimination against SCs and STs.
What are the arguments against reservations?
Critics argue that reservations perpetuate caste divisions, benefit the “creamy layer,” and should shift toward economic criteria, as seen with EWS quotas.
What challenges does affirmative action face in India?
Challenges include implementation gaps, social backlash, data deficiency, intersectional inequalities, and the urban-rural divide in 2025.
What can India learn from international models?
The US and South Africa emphasize outcome monitoring, while Brazil addresses intersectionality, offering lessons for India’s Article 15 and affirmative action policies.
Why is this topic important for judiciary exams?
The Article 15 and affirmative action debate tests knowledge of constitutional law, landmark cases, and contemporary issues like reservations and equality.
What might the future hold for reservations in India?
A shift toward economic criteria, data-driven policies, and an intersectional approach could redefine affirmative action beyond 2025.
How can India make reservations more effective?
By addressing implementation gaps, focusing on education and skills, and adopting intersectional policies, ensuring Article 15 and affirmative action achieve true equity.