105th Constitutional Amendment Act
The 105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021
1. Background
The 105th Constitutional Amendment Act was enacted to address a sensitive and contentious issue related to reservation (affirmative action) in educational institutions and public employment.
It focuses on the status of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) / Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and their inclusion or exclusion from reservation benefits.
2. What Does the 105th Amendment Say?
The amendment exempts the states from the operation of the Supreme Court's 1992 judgment in the Mandal case (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India) to the extent that it had fixed a 50% ceiling on reservations in public employment and education.
It restores the power of the states to identify SEBCs (OBCs) and provide them with reservations beyond 50%, including in private unaided educational institutions.
It reinstates the earlier position that states could make laws providing reservation benefits to SEBCs without limitation by the 50% cap imposed by the Supreme Court.
3. Key Provisions
Empowers states to make laws for SEBCs reservations beyond the 50% limit.
Applies to both government and private unaided educational institutions.
Excludes SCs (Scheduled Castes) and STs (Scheduled Tribes) from this ceiling exemption.
Provides that the central or state governments can notify SEBCs for the purpose of reservation.
4. Context and Reason
The Mandal Judgment (1992) had set a 50% limit on reservations, emphasizing merit and equality.
Several states had enacted laws for more than 50% reservation for OBCs, especially for the "Most Backward Classes" or special backward groups.
The Supreme Court had struck down or questioned these laws citing the 50% ceiling.
The 105th Amendment restores state power to enact such laws and provide extensive affirmative action to SEBCs.
5. Important Related Case Law
📌 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal case)
The Supreme Court held:
Reservation should not exceed 50%.
Certain categories like "creamy layer" among OBCs should be excluded.
Reservations beyond 50% disrupt the principle of equality.
This judgment became a constitutional benchmark for reservations in India.
📌 M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of certain state laws providing reservations to SCs and STs with a ceiling but emphasized the need for quantifiable data to justify reservations.
📌 Maratha Reservation Case (2019) – Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court and Supreme Court dealt with the Maratha reservation exceeding 50%.
The Supreme Court referred to the Mandal judgment and questioned reservations beyond 50%.
The 105th Amendment was enacted to restore the powers of states, following challenges in cases like this.
6. Significance
The amendment:
Empowers states to identify and extend reservation benefits to SEBCs without the 50% ceiling.
Strengthens federal principles by allowing state autonomy in affirmative action policies.
Reaffirms the commitment to social justice for backward classes.
7. Criticism and Debate
Critics argue that the removal of the 50% cap may affect meritocracy and equality.
Some believe it may lead to excessive fragmentation of reservation quotas.
Supporters argue it is necessary to address historical and social inequalities more effectively.
8. Summary
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Enacted | 2021 |
| Purpose | Restore states’ power to provide OBC reservations beyond 50% |
| Applies to | State governments and private unaided educational institutions |
| Excludes | Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from exemption |
| Overrules | 50% reservation ceiling set in Indra Sawhney (Mandal) case |
| Key principle | State autonomy in affirmative action |
RELATED Blog
0 comments