The on-going controversy over OBC reservations raises some important questions: is reservation on the basis of the decades old OBC list really in favour of socially and educationally backward classes? Is reservation at the post-graduate level justified? Is reservation in favour of OBCs in private unaided educational institutions established by non-minorities violative of equality? Does the 93rd amendment make it mandatory to provide such reservation? Is the unanimity among political parties on the issue the equivalent of the constitutionality of the proposal?

In my humble opinion, after an in-depth study of the provisions of the Constitution and various Supreme Court judgments, the answers to all the five questions have to be in the negative. Equality of all citizens is the founding faith of our Constitution as enshrined in its Preamble. It also constitutes one of the elements of the basic structure of the Constitution which cannot be amended.

However, given the existence of inequality among the citizens, an enabling provision was inserted in Clause (4) of Article 15, which conferred power on the state to make special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (not castes) of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

Accordingly, provisions for reservation was made in professional colleges for over 50 years. Now that a substantial number of persons who belonged to OBCs have made tremendous progress thanks to these and other measures, they should not be considered as belonging to the backward classes any longer. In this context it is appropriate to quote what the Supreme Court had said in Peria Karuppan as early as in 1971: “Government should not proceed on the basis that once a class is considered as a backward class it should continue to be backward class for all times...Reservation of seats should not be allowed to become a vested interest”. Once this elimination is achieved, the percentage of reservation would also have to be proportionately reduced. Without doing so, extending the benefit to the same list now and to the same extent is unconstitutional.

... contd.