Reservations: Towards a Solution
- Diagnostics:
The analysis from the preceding articles (Reservation: In Lieu of a Report, 3rd June 2020, and Reservation Framework: Intent, Infirmities, and Implications, 4th June 2020) highlights three critical issues in Jammu and Kashmir’s (J&K) reservation policy:
First, the current reservation level of 70% - 60% vertical and 10% horizontal - exceeds the Supreme Court’s 50% cap, rendering it unconstitutional. Tamil Nadu’s 69% reservation, protected under the Ninth Schedule, is an exception due to its immunity from judicial review. As B.R. Ambedkar emphasized, reservations “must be confined to a minority of seats” to avoid making meritocracy the exception and reservation the norm. Such high quotas raise reverse social justice concerns, transforming a social engineering tool into a political instrument.
Second, along with this unprecedented quantum of reservation at the state level, is a concentrated distribution that is prejudicial to the majority population and discriminatory to a region, Kashmir. In the interaction of level and distribution, a third issue of overlapping and the consequent adverse beneficiary targeting results in a moral hazard.
Essentially, the Valley is getting penalised for being a socially egalitarian society. It raises deeply disturbing questions, not only of politics and policy but also profoundly philosophical ones: is an affirmative action framework meant to reward social disarticulation or ensure economic justice for the underprivileged sections?
- Prescriptive Proposals:
The basic principle of modifying any reservation policy to make it non-discriminatory has to be to align it with population proportions and contemporary socio-economic realities. The architecture of region-specific quotas can be designed to ensure more equitable distribution of opportunities by aligning reservation benefits with regional population proportions. In the process, it will also restore the open merit access.
Further, for any sectoral or functional policy to be successful, it is imperative that it fits in with the broad direction of governance. Over the last decade or so, to address the growing demand from Jammu for a separate statehood, there has been a conscious effort to provide Jammu region with a greater administrative apparatus. Overtime, the functional administration has been split vertically down the line between Jammu and Kashmir. This is one of the reasons for a bloated bureaucracy. The developmental administration was already divided. Almost every administrative department has now been divided on divisional geography.
ALSO READ: Reservation Framework: Intent, Infirmities and Implications
Rather than take the gerrymandering route as was done in delimitation, and now social engineering, to discriminate against the demographic majority, it will be cleaner and less contentious to have reservations on a region-specific basis. Both regions will prosper. As such a region-specific reservation model can be advocated as a potential solution to address the ongoing reservation row in the Valley.
Indeed, there is a historical precedent to this model. In J&K, region-specific reservation, where recruitment policies prioritized local candidates for certain posts, was in practice. Reformulating this model to the current affirmative action framework could restore regional equity without violating constitutional norms.
There is also precedence such interventions in other states. Maharashtra, for instance, implemented region-specific considerations in its reservation policies. It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2021 not for being region specific but for breaching the 50 per cent cap. Andhra Pradesh has a local quota system since 2018, which allocates jobs to candidates from specific geographies. This ensures representation from backward regions like Rayalaseema. Telangana grouped homogeneous sub-castes to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits. This approach addresses intra-category disparities, like J&K’s Gujjar-Bakarwal vs. Pahari case in J&K. States like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have used sub-regional quotas in recruitment to address local disparities.
ALSO READ: Reservations: In lieu of a Report
Region-specific quotas can be calibrated to adjust reservation percentages to reflect local demographics, potentially increasing open merit opportunities. By allocating separate shares for different communities based on their regional presence, it will reduce intra-community conflicts. By tailoring reservations to regional demographics, the policy will address complaints of “reverse discrimination” against the unreserved category, particularly in Kashmir, where the lack of SC representation results in Jammu-based candidates filling reserved posts.
In Table 3 is a comparison of the current reservation distribution in J&K with the proposed region-specific quota model. The current distribution is based on the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, as amended in 2024, while the proposed model suggests adjustments to align quotas with regional demographics: Jammu having around 45 percent and Kashmir about 55 percent of the total population of J&K according to the 2011 census.
Importantly, it adheres to the overarching Supreme Court’s cap of 50 percent. The proposed model aims to balance regional equity, reduce discrimination against open merit candidates, and comply with legal limits. The Supreme Court judgment of 2024 is benign to tailoring reservations to specific regions (and/or groups). This can be a legal basis for the proposed region-specific reservation reforms.
Table 3:
Reservations: An Indicative Distribution
| Category | Current Reservation (%) | Proposed Jammu Reservation (%) | Proposed Kashmir Reservation (%) |
| Scheduled Caste | 8% | 8% | 0% |
| Scheduled Tribe (ST) | 20% | 15% | 10% |
| Other Backward Classes | 8% | 8% | 8% |
| Residents of Backward Areas | 10% | 10% | 10% |
| Economically Weaker Sections | 10% | 7% | 7% |
| Actual Line of Control | 4% | 2% | 2% |
| Open Merit# | 40% | 50% | 63% |
| Total Reserved## | 60% | 50% | 37% |
Notes and Sources:
- # Effectively 30 percent after horizontal reservations
- ## Effectively 70 percent after horizontal reservations
- Current Quota: Reflects the existing policy with over 60% reservation, criticized for exceeding the Supreme Court’s 50% cap and marginalizing open merit candidates, especially in Kashmir.
- Proposed Jammu Quota: Maintains SC reservation (concentrated in Jammu) but reduces ST and EWS slightly to fit within 50%, reflecting Jammu’s demographic weight (~45%).
- Proposed Kashmir Quota: Eliminates SC reservation (due to negligible SC population) and adjusts ST and EWS to prioritize local communities, increasing open merit share to 63%.
- Data Source: Based on 2011 census demographics, 2023 reservation beneficiary data, and policy discussions from 2024.
- Challenges and Side Effects:
This is an indicative model and not a complete self-contained solution. To maximize effectiveness, region-specific quotas will need to be complemented by broader long-term reforms, such as applying the creamy layer criterion, to ensure benefits reach the most disadvantaged.
What also needs to be ensured in implementation is alignment of it with Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings like Indra Sawhney (1992) and M. Nagaraj (2006). Otherwise, these may face constitutional challenges under Article 16(2), which prohibits discrimination in employment based on place of residence. While Article 16(3) allows Parliament to prescribe residence-based requirements, intra-state divisional quotas lack clear parliamentary backing in J&K.
Adjusting quotas is bound to alienate some communities currently benefiting, such as SCs and OBCs in Jammu, or newly included ST groups like Paharis. Political parties, with their social base, will have to navigate their electoral compulsions.
Given the fact that the elected executive in J&K is operating in a transitional federal context, with constrained powers, it is better to take a legislative route rather than a pure administrative one. For it will require amending the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, to incorporate region-specific quotas, ensuring alignment with constitutional provisions and Supreme Court rulings. Depending on how it is designed and formulated, parliamentary approval under Article 16(3) might be required since data that is needed to back it up is not in public domain. And, of course, it will finally require the approval of the Lieutenant Governor. But at least, the elected government would have shown its inclination, intent and intrepidity.
Technical Appendix:
Pending a statistical exercise to assess multicollinearity—where reservation categories overlap—it’s clear that RBAC and the Pahari category significantly impact the reservation process. Reservations for residents near the LoC/IB need streamlining, as many already benefit from the 20% ST quota for Gujjars and Paharis. Introducing a creamy layer concept, first within the Pahari group and later across SC and ST communities, is essential. Principal Component Analysis can identify affluent individuals for exclusion, ensuring marginalized rights remain intact.
This statistical approach will improve reservation benefit distribution. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India supports this, with Justice Gavai emphasizing that states must identify the creamy layer within SCs and STs to exclude them from affirmative action benefits. Such sub-categorization will expand open merit, as meritocracy is the norm, and reservations are an exception, ensuring fairer access to opportunities.
(This is the concluding art of the series on Reservation. The first two parts, Reservation; In lieu of a Report, and Reservation Framework: Intent, Infirmities and Implication, appeared on 3rd and 4th June respectively)
The author is Contributing Editor Greater Kashmir
