RESERVATION IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITYRESERVATION IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONSCONSTITUTIONAL LAW-I

SUBMITTED TO:SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. K.K DWIVEDIKUMAR SAURABHCONSTITUTIONAL LAW FACULTYROLL NO: 7549 (5th SEMESTER)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTAny project completed or done in isolation is unthinkable. This project, although prepared by me, is a culmination of efforts of a lot of people.Firstly, I would like to thank our Constitutional Law Professor, Dr. Krishna Kant Dwivedi for his valuable suggestions towards the making of this project.Further to that, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our seniors who were a lot of help for the completion of this project.The contributions made by my family and classmates and friends are, definitely, worth mentioning.I would like to express my gratitude towards the library staff for their help also.And at last but not least I would like to thank the almighty God for his grace upon me and everybody.

.KUMAR SAURABHRoll No. 7549, 2011-2016

TABLE OF CONTENTSRESEARCH METHODOLOGY4INTRODUCTION5HISTORY6INDIAN POSITION8CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISONS10BASIC STRUCTURE OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION10ARTICLE 21A AND RESERVATION17CONCLUSION18BIBLIOGRAPHY19

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:The aim of the project is to present a brief study of Reservation in Educational Institutions in India. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS:Though this is an immense project and pages can be written over the topic so the researcher has limited this research work Reservation in Educational Institutions and provisions of Constitution of India related to the topic.SOURCES OF DATA:The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-1. Articles1. Internet1. Books1. Case LawsMETHOD OF WRITING:The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical. The method of research is generally doctrinal, and a bit of empirical research is also done.MODE OF CITATION:The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this research paper.

INTRODUCTION

India is a country with a vast diversity in its demographic feature identifying the country as one of the peculiar in the world in policy making for various issues. Diversity of population, based on caste, community or religion has been disturbing the unity and peace of the country since early. The biasness of the rulers or the administrators has made this caste and religion based diversity into socio economic inequality. So through the reservation provision for the backward people, this inequality or gap has been trying to bridge up. But after passing through almost six decades of independence, the evaluation of this system of special provision has become necessary.Though it appears unfair to say, it must be admitted that reservation anywhere leads to sacrifice of the best choice. And thus, rationally, reservation in any where affects the pace of growth negatively. It also makes thinking against self respect. If one goes back to one century before India, he/she would have been feeling shame to be a person from a backward caste. But these days one wants to manage a certificate of backward caste by any means. Even a person belonging to general caste or higher caste community doesnt hesitate to introduce himself as a member of scheduled caste or backward class only to get some special provisions which are not available for a person belonging to general caste.This is how the mindset of the people has changed. From one side this bears a good sign while other point of view, this witnesses frustrated scenery of the society. The only good sign is that it indicates the welcomed eradication of the caste system. That is, today no one feels proud of being from Brahmin (higher caste) or in inferiority complex of being representing a doom (lower caste) group.But it is alarming that this vanish of caste system is not a straight-forward change of the mindset of the people, rather it is only to have the special provisions which have been awarded only to some specific category of people by the state or the nation. Religiously or communally the caste system has been well maintained in each and every social phenomenon.[footnoteRef:1] [1: "Rationality of Reservation System in India."Delivering News, Not Profit. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2013]

Now let us proceed from the second view point. Why today there is the trend that a person belonging to higher caste wants to be introduced himself as backward caste? The reason will be, most probably, that he feels lack of sufficiency which he/she should have as a member of advanced class and feels needs for provisions which are not available to him that are well available to a person belonging to backward classes. That is there is a mismatch between the systems of categorization of the people with the socio economic needs for special provisions from that categorization!Which indicators should be the basic factor to identify the most vulnerable groups or person is a big issue at present context of the social scenario and also this is the challenge for the policy makers from time to time. But before going into the contemporary policy making, we must have a look into the foundation of the system from beginning. Generations of a particular poor or backward family may not remain backward after six and half decades. Even the assumption that person belongs to shudra or the backward caste will be the economically poorest in the society may not hold good today.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Ibid 1.]

But how the propounder of Indian Constitution (at the time of constitution building) found the caste based reservation raj as rational is also a debatable matter. History witnesses that as a result of higher class exploitation on the lower class Hindu, Muslim aggressors took the advantage to convert the lower class Hindu to Muslim. But the Muslim did not succeed to improve the socio economic condition of life of this portion of population.HISTORY

In Indian society because of caste system, India has also followed one type of racism and because of this when Indian constitution was drafted the makers of Indian constitution introduced reservation for certain caste and people Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. If we will check the records in the year 1858 also British People knew how to divide and rule India, and with this policy very intelligently they kept dividing India on name of Religion and Caste and sub caste. But the tragedy of Mother India is that, when British People left they handed over the India to such people who changed nothing what was started by British and Indian leaders and politicians kept ruling India with the same rules and principals of British people.British people gave us few good things and few bad things. Those were bad things like quota system, division on the basis of caste and religion, British people introduced that to safeguard their rule on India, but our Indian rulers also adopted same policy and ideas to create their own family rule forever in India. Before Independence as well as after Independence also the sad story is that we never got any opposition party who wanted to change this and introduce reservation in everything in India on the basis of collective salary of family. All political parties know that divide and rule policy based on castes and religion will make them rich, will always help them hide their corruption and bad deeds and they are following it religiously.[footnoteRef:3] [3: "Reservation in India - It's Time for Evaluation."Indian Defence Forum RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.]

The Hunter Commission (1882-83) was the first to recommend universal education in India. Thereafter, the Patel Bill, 1917 was the first compulsory education legislation. It proposed to make education compulsory from ages 6 to 11. The Government of India Act, 1935 provided that "education should be made free and compulsory for both boys and girls." Free and compulsory education got a further boost when the Zakir Hussain Commission recommended that the State should provide it. The 1944 Sargent Report strongly recommended free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen. By 1947, primary education had been made compulsory in 152 urban areas and 4995 rural areas.

INDIAN POSITION

The introduction of reservations in educational institutions in India was originally implemented to improve the well-being of backward and under-represented communities. These groups were defined on basis of their caste, and the positive discrimination was foremost designed for the Schedules Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the Constitution of India. The caste-based division has roots back from the British reign, when it was first introduced to give equal opportunities in education. It has since then been extended to other sectors. In 1984 a third group was included to the program; Other Backward Classes (OBC). Together these three groups make up around 85 % of the total Indian population. The law sets aside a percentage of vacancies in governmental jobs and educational institutes for these groups. In 1989 the government decided that 28 % of the governmental employments and university seats were to be reserved for OBC. The thought behind was to give everyone equal opportunities and reduce the gap between people caused by having different opportunities and responsibility in the society. This issue has been very much debated in India since it was implemented after Independence and remains a controversial topic even today.The reason for objections by many has been the criteria for inclusion being based on caste. This reinforces the importance of the caste-system in the society, which is initially the reason for the differences. The law enhances the identity-politics and makes castes and ethnicity more prominent in the Indian society. In a country with such a huge diversity in religions, beliefs and traditions, caste-based reservations seem to be another way of fragmenting the nation instead of bringing people together. This might seem as a paradox for many.There have been many questions regarding the fact that the caste-based reservations build on the hindu caste system, while the Indian Constitution guarantees equality to all citizens, and thus does not permit discrimination by the state in any manner. Further on, the anti-reservationists claim that the reservations infringe the right to equality, instead of strengthening it. This scheme seem to be dividing India into two groups; the oppressed and the oppressors, which further leads to mistrust and groupism. Some individuals of backward castes too feel unfairly judged, according to their right to reserved seats rather than their capabilities. The disapproval is most visible among those who are not included in the program though, I.e. upper castes, who might lose out on preferred education and jobs, despite being qualified, as some vacancies are reserved. In a situation where there is already though competition for almost every education and later on job, the reservations leads to an increased animosity among the groups, besides being a social stigma. Thus the idea of including the backward classes in the society and empowering them, might lead to even more hostility and oppression.In 1992/1993 the government and Supreme Court excluded the creamy layer of OBC from the reservations. This group is defined according to their gross annual income. Children belonging to OBC families whose income is above Rs 450000 a year are not classified as socially and educationally backward, and are therefore not given any rights in the governmental reservations program. This exception applies for OBC children only, and not children of SC and ST families. This certifies the requirement to look at underprivileged individuals, rather than underprivileged classes. There will always be differences within a caste, and if the reasoning for denying the creamy layer reservations is their income, then why not base the reservations on income and not include caste in the equation at all?[footnoteRef:4] [4: "Caste-based Reservations in Governmental Jobs and Educational Institutions: Enhancing the Differences? | Fokus INDIA."Fokus INDIA. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.]

But income-based reservations might not be an optimal solution either. The lower castes are usually the poorest ones, so it would more or less benefit the same people. But the caste-system is a strong in-built part of the Indian society, and so the discrimination towards the lower castes (in this case, represented as those with lowest income) would probably be just as visible as it is now. Even without the word caste included in the law, it would be quite evident who is benefitting from the scheme within the community. And so the discrimination would affect the same people.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISONS

BASIC STRUCTURE OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

One must start the discussion with by referring to the Landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofKeshavananda Bharativ.State of Kerela.[footnoteRef:5] The Supreme Court observed that the basic structure of the Constitution is not a vague concept. The elements of the basic structure are indicated in the preamble of the Constitution and translated in its various provisions. The edifice of the Constitution is built upon and stands on several props, remove any of them, the Constitution collapses. If the historical background, the Preamble, the entire scheme of the Constitution, the relevant provisions thereof including Article 368 are kept in mind there can be no difficulty in discerning that the following can be regarded as the basic elements of the Constitutional structure. [5: AIR 1973 SC 1461]

The constituents of the basic structure of our Constitution can be only illustrative (i) The supremacy of the Constitution. (ii) Republican and Democratic form of Government and sovereignty of the country.(iii) Secular and federal character of the Constitution.(iv) Demarcation of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.(v) The dignity of the individual (secured by the various freedoms and basic rights in Part III and the mandate to build a welfare State contained in Part IV).(vi) The unity and the integrity of the nation. In addition, the following may also be referred to as the basic elements of the constitution (1) Sovereign Democratic Republic; (2) Justice, social, economic and political; (3) Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; (4) Equality of status and of opportunity. Each one of these is important and collectively they assure a way of life to the people of India which the Constitution guarantees.To withdraw any of the above elements the structure will not survive and it will not be the same Constitution, nor can the Constitution maintain its identity, if something quite different is substituted in its place, which the sovereign will of the people alone can do. In this case, the Supreme Court further held that it should only be the Constituent Assembly which is empowered either to amend the basic features of the Constitution and the said powercannotbe conferred on the Parliament.Indian constitution under Article 15 pledges to prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion race, caste' sex or place of birth or any of them. However, this prohibition of discrimination is qualified by 'Special Provision'-[footnoteRef:6] [6: "On What Grounds Does Article 15 of the Indian Constitution Prohibit Discrimination."On What Grounds Does Article 15 of the Indian Constitution Prohibit Discrimination. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2013]

for women and children under clause 3 and for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled caste and the scheduled tribes under clause 4.However, exceptions are being provided by constitution for positive discrimination by making special provision for those belonging to falling under clause (3) and (4). Moreover, what is prohibited is not discrimination but discrimination on any of the specified grounds in Article-15.(i) Only on any other grounds, not mentioned here, discrimination can be made.The provisions of Article-15 are available to the citizen only. However, its scope is much wider, as it is enforceable not only against the state but also against individuals.Article 46 of the directive principles of state policy enjoins the state to promote with special care, the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people.In requires making provisions particularly for the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. Along with Article 16, 29 and 340 of the constitution this article efforts for upliftment of backward classes of the society. Reserving seats in educational institutions under Article 15(3) and seat in public employment under Article 16(4) are held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court.Insertion of the clause 4 in Article 15 for special provisions for SCs and STs and other backward classes by 1st Amendment Act 1951 have been made under these articles and the benefits educational, social, economical and political fields are given to them is also constitutional and valid provision.The history of reservations in India can be traced back to the cases of Srimathi Champakam DorairajanandVenkatramanv.State of Madras.[footnoteRef:7] In these cases the Indian Supreme Court held that any legislation and/or executive order prescribing reservations on the basis of caste were unconstitutional. Soon after the said two decisions the Parliament intervened and in exercise of its constituent power amended Article 15 by inserting Clause (4) which states that Nothing in this article or in Clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.[footnoteRef:8] It is also profitable to note that the said amendment was brought about by the very same constituent assembly which drafted the Indian Constitution. Then came up the issue of the ceiling on reservation which was dealt by the Court in theM.R. Balajiv.State of Mysore[footnoteRef:9]wherein it was held that under no circumstances can the reservation exceed 50%. Meanwhile, the issue regarding the determination of socially and educationally backward classes was always of grave concern. Article 15(4) does not define backward classes. [7: 1951 AIR 226] [8: Article 15(4)] [9: 1963 AIR 649]

InBalaji, it was said that caste may be a relevant factor, but not the sole criteria nor the dominant criteria for determination of backward class. In that case, the order of reservation was declared bad as it was based solely on caste without regard to other relevant factors. InJanki Prasad Parimoov.State of J & K[footnoteRef:10], it was held that poverty alone cannot be the test of backwardness as large sections of population in India are backward and thus the whole object of reservation would be frustrated. InChitralekhav.State of Mysore,[footnoteRef:11] an order saying that a family whose income was less than Rs. 1200 per year and followed such occupation as agriculture, petty business, inferior services, crafts, etc would be treated as backward, was declared valid though caste as a criteria was totally ignored for the purpose. It was held that identification of backward classes on the basis of occupation-cum-income, without reference to caste is not bad and would not offend Art. 15(4). [10: 1973 AIR 930] [11: 1964 AIR 1823]

InP. Ranjendranv.State of Madras[footnoteRef:12]it was held that though caste cannot be the sole criteria, it should not be forgotten that caste is also a class of citizens and if the caste as a whole is socially and educationally backward, reservation can be made in favour of such caste. [12: 1968 AIR 1012]

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and Others[footnoteRef:13] was one of the most important cases which discussed Reservation in Educational Institutions- Ashok Kumar Thakur is not about whether quotas should continue. It was not about quotas v. merit. Affirmative action for the disadvantaged classes is a constitutional mandate. The only question is who gets them. If the program is designed in a manner which undermines equality and reinforces caste (which Ambedkar termed anti-national), it upsets the entire constitutional scheme of promoting equality and the judiciary has to scrutinize it. Unfortunately the judiciary did not live up to its job. The judgment suffers from eight fatal flaws listed below. Each of them deserves an independent post. But I do want to present them when the issue is still alive. [13: 1996 AIR 75]

First, and the most fatal flaw of this judgment is that it deepens the institution of caste based on an improper understanding of the text and the context of the Supreme Court ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.[footnoteRef:14] Indra Sawhney does not permanently embed caste as a starting point for identifying backward classes. Indra Sawhney only blessed caste, it did not mandate it. Caste might have been a legit imitates starting point for identifying backward class in the 1970 and 1980s when the Backward Class list was prepared, but whether caste is still a proxy for backward class in 2008 can only be decided based on an empirical independent investigation. Not only did Indra Sawhney preclude a more scientific method for identifying backward classes, it mandated it by requiring a periodic independent investigation. The judges had a rare opportunity to go beyond caste by mandating the government to prepare a BC list, which was not based on caste. That would have been consistent with Indra Sawhney and would have taken the politics out of the entire business of affirmative action. [14: AIR 1993 SC 477]

Second, the judgment chants, but does not enforce or substantiate the empirical investigation requirement laid down in Indra Sawhney. Indra Sawhney laid down several requirements regarding a periodic investigation of backward classes to ensure that only the deserving get the benefits. Indra Sawhney contemplated that every ten years the Backward Classes Commission would lay down the criterion for backwardness and based on those criterions, it would identify classes who could be called backward classes. Between each survey period, if any person/group felt that it was unfairly excluded or included, it could approach the BC Commission which would decide based on the criterion laid down to identify backward classes. A similar process is not contemplated for SC and ST because backward class is a shifting class and not a fixed class like Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Backwardness is a relative state of affairs based on the general advancement of the society and therefore the need for a periodic review. But over the last two decades very little action has been taken. Caste has become a one-way ticket to the backward class list. Once a caste is identified, very rarely has it gone out of the list. The BC has not been revised in many states from the seventies. The judgment lost focus on these requirements and instead gives gave some broad unenforceable guidelines on investigation. The judges, Justice Balakrishnan in particular, brushed aside this entire issue by saying that the identification of BC list was not based solely on caste and therefore it was proper. He equated the power of the Backward Class Commission to decide the function of inclusion and exclusion with the requirement to conduct an independent investigation. They were never meant to be the same.

Third, the judgment confuses backward class under Article 15(5) (and 15(4)) and Article 16(4). Under 15(5) (and 15(4)), numerical majority is irrelevant. A section of the society can comprise 70% of the population and still be backward. But under Article 16(4), a section of the society must not only be backward, but must also be inadequately represented. It is only in Article 16(4) that population and its representation in state services acquires significance and not under Article 15(4) and Article 15(5).Fourth, the judgment messed up judicial review standard in affirmative action by dumping strict scrutiny. India never had complete strict scrutiny, but only partial strict scrutiny. Dumping the entire strict scrutiny standard is like dumping the baby with bath water. And the court only confused the existing standard. Justice Balakrishnan mentioned, but did not flesh out the alternative ex facie unreasonable standard. Instead, he did the unthinkable by putting the burden on petitioners to show that the backward classes do not constitute 27%. Although thats an irrelevant question because of reasons pointed above, the burden is always on the state to justify affirmative action and not the petitioners. That was the holding in Indra Sawhney and in the cases before that.Fifth, the only achievement of this judgment was its strong emphasis on creamy layer, but it confused this area by lack of clarity on educational creamy layer. Mr. Venkatesan in his blogs said that chief justice has clarified that there was no such ruling. The Chief Justice has no power to issue such a clarification. Only a Supreme Court bench can issue such a clarification. Once a judge delivers a judgment, he does not have the power to issue a clarification. (unless there is a review petition or another bench interprets that judgment)

The absence of any mentions of this aspect in the final order whether signed by all the judges or not is of no consequence. It has been a settled principle that what matters is the reasoning of the judgment and not the final conclusion. (The SC had ruled that the final conclusion in Kesavananda Bharti has no legal significance.)There is a strong justification for creating an educational creamy layer exception. The justification given in Indra Sawhney for creating a creamy layer is because they as members of the class need to share common characteristics and a creamy layer no longer shares those characteristics and therefore the connection ceases with the backward class. The same logic applies to an educational creamy layer. Once a person from a backward class graduates, he is no longer educationally backward. He loses that connection with the rest of the class and he does not share those characteristics. So even though he might come from socially and educationally backward class, he is no longer educationally backward by virtue of his educational attainments. His connection with that class ceases.

Sixth, the judgment stamped the poor constitutional advice given to the HRD Ministry by reconciling Article 15 (5) and Article 15(4). Before Article 15(5), reservation for OBCs in state aided institutions could be provided under Article 15(4). Several states used that mechanism. In case of unaided or private institutions, the judgment in T.M.A. Pai and Inamdar precluded reservation and admission was to be only on merit. The court said that reservation would be an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g). The primary purpose of Article 15(5) was only for private institutions. For state institutions, Article 15(4) was already there. Instead of recognizing this simple constitutional history, the judgment went into this elaborate discussion about reconciling Article 15(4) and Article 15(5). There was no such need. The government could have provided reservation in IIT and IIM and other central government educational institutions even without Article 15(5).Seventh, the Court deviated from precedent when it declined to hear the constitutional challenge of affirmative action in unaided educational institutions. The reason there were no private institutions before the court. The court could not have thought of a poorer excuse! This issue came up extensively. The entire point of Article 15(5) was about private unaided institutions. The court assumed that only private institutions had the right to question caste-based reservations in Article 15(5). Both the teacher and the students and even the general public have the right to question an amendment which mandates caste based quotas in private institutions which do not take support from the state. It is obvious that standing was just an excuse to defer this issue to a future court. Surprisingly Justice Balakrishnan who declined to decide the constitutional validity of reservations in private colleges since the Act in question only provided reservation in central government institutions decided the issue of creamy layer for SCs and ST. Even that question was also not in issue since Act was only confined to providing reservation for OBCs in central institutions. Eighth, the judges never considered the issue of proportionality. In India, the affirmative action discourse has been focused only on quotas. Unlike the United States, the primary purpose of affirmative action in India is to compensate for past discrimination and not promote diversity or any other objective. In such a case, the compensation must be proportional to the deprivation suffered. Quotas stand at the end of the chain. Some forms of deprivation may not justify even a full quota, but possibly a milder form of affirmative action in the form of increase in marks or similar measures. Again, this can happen only though an independent investigation which the judges simply did not focus on.[footnoteRef:15] [15: "Law and Other Things.": THE EIGHT FATAL SINS OF ASHOK KUMAR THAKUR V. UNION OF INDIA. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.]

ARTICLE 21A AND RESERVATION

By the 86th Amendment, Article 21A was inserted in our Constitution. Article 21A reads as follows: "The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.[footnoteRef:16]" Under Article 21A, it is a mandatory obligation of the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children aged six to fourteen. In order to achieve this constitutional mandate, the State has to place much greater emphasis on allocating more funds for primary and secondary education. There is no corresponding constitutional right to higher education. The entire Nation's progress virtually depends upon the proper and effective implementation of Article 21A. [16: "On What Grounds Does Article 15 of the Indian Constitution Prohibit Discrimination."On What Grounds Does Article 15 of the Indian Constitution Prohibit Discrimination. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.]

This Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others[footnoteRef:17] held as under: "... right to education is implicit in and flows from the right to life guaranteed by Article 21. That the right to education has been treated as one of transcendental importance in the life of an individual [and] has been recognized not only in this country since thousands of years, but all over the world. Without education being provided to citizens of this country, the objectives set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution cannot be achieved. The Constitution would fail." [17: (1993) 1 SCC 645 para 166]

This observation encouraged the Parliament to insert Article 21A into the Constitution. In Unni Krishnan[footnoteRef:18], Justice Reddy observed that the quality of education in Government schools was extremely poor and that the schools were woefully inadequate to the needs of the children. He noted that many countries spend 6% to 8% of Gross Domestic Product on education. Our expenditure on education is just 4% of GDP. Education for children up to the age of fourteen years should be free. This has also been suggested in the recommendations of the Kothari Commission on Education in 1966. Taking the country's rampant poverty into account, free education up to the age 14 years is absolutely imperative. There is no other way for the poor to climb their way out of this predicament. Article 21A may be the most important fundamental right. Without it, a citizen may never come to know of his other rights; nor would he have the resources to adequately enforce them [18: Supra]

CONCLUSION

Reservation policies at all levels of higher education both redistribute SC and ST students upward in the university quality hierarchy and attract into universities significant numbers of SC and ST students who would not otherwise pursue higher education. The vast majority of SC and ST beneficiaries of reservation policies enter university programmes with poorer preparation and lower academic qualifications than their peers and, not surprisingly, they tend not to perform as well in their studies. There is evidence, however, that the entry-test-score gap between SC and ST and other students has been narrowing over the past few decades.

Positive discrimination policies in admissions to higher educational institutions should instead be understood as an effort to promote the integration of the upper strata of society by increasing the access of members of highly disadvantaged and under-represented communities to elite occupations and decision making positions. Such integration of a societys elite promises a variety of benefits, including: greater legitimacy of the political system, better performance of jobs involving familiarity with and understanding of disadvantaged communities; more equal opportunity for ordinary members of SC and ST communities to resources and jobs; greater motivation of SC and ST youth to work to better their future prospects. From this perspective, what matters most in judging the success of reservation policies in higher educational admissions is whether the beneficiaries in relatively elite institutions succeed in completing their degree programmes and advancing into successful careers? The very limited evidence available on this question suggests that most SC and ST students enrolled in elite higher educational institutions in India do indeed go on to successful careers certainly much more so than they would have in the absence of reservation policies. The fact that reservation policies in admissions to higher educational institutions tend to benefit a creamy layer of SC and ST students is often taken by critics as prima facie evidence that these policies are failing to achieve their objective. Such a inference would be warranted, however, only if the primary objective of these policies were to improve the distribution of educational opportunities within the SC and ST communities. But reservation policies in higher educational institutions are obviously not the right way to promote such an objective.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS: Vakil, A K (1985): Reservation Policy and Scheduled Castes in India, Asish Publishing House, New Delhi. Karlekar, M (1975): Higher Education and the Scheduled Castes, Journal of Higher Education, 1, pp 178-87. Aikara, J (1980): Scheduled Castes and Higher Education: A Study of College Students in Mumbai, Dastane, Pune.

WEBSITES: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?237172#2. Applying Article 21A to the Reservation Act http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.in/2008/05/eight-fatal-sins-of-ashok-kumar-thakur.html http://examcrazy.com/Education-System/India/Indian-Education-Reservation-Quota-System.asp http://www.indialawjournal.com/volume3/issue_2/article_by_rushminsunny.html http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1219385/

18