The document discusses caste-based reservation in India. It analyzes the rationale for reservation, including addressing the structural problems of India's hierarchal, caste-stratified society and resulting cumulative inequality. It examines the Mandal Commission's approach and judicial interpretations of reservation criteria. While reservation aims to promote social justice and equalize capabilities, some argue it can lead to reverse discrimination or that caste itself should be removed before reservation. The conclusion is that caste, not reservation, is truly damaging to society, and universal education could help create a more level playing field.

1. Caste or Reservation
Who is damaging the society?
An Analytical study of Caste-Based Reservation in India
Pallavi Devi, Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy and Law
(Assam Rajiv Gandhi University of Cooperative Management, Sivasagar, Assam)

2. Introduction
 Reservation is temporary
 Caste is the principle of inclusion and exclusion
 This paper attempts to discuss –
 Reservations should not be mixed up with the
welfare activities of the state
 Reservations are not meant for conferring benefits
to the poor.

3. Rationale of Reservation
 Structural problem of hierarchic society
 Horizontally and vertically split and stratified on
the basis of caste
 Cumulative inequality
 Series of other laws removing disabilities.

4. The Mandal Commission
 Mandate under Art 340 of the Indian Constitution
 11 indicators to determine social backwardness
 Mandal approach reveals a strong correlation between
jati status and economic and social deprivation
 Classification if only by means of income and wealth,
there would be poor among the population of all jatis,
not just SC/ST or the OBC.

5. Judiciary’s position of the criteria for Backwardness
 Balaji v. State of Mysore,1963 & Chitralekha
v. State of Mysore, 1963
 Caste and Class were not synonymous
 K G Vasanth Kumar & others v. State of
Karnataka,1968
 Caste & Class became synonymous
 Caste cum means test became the sole criteria.

6. Judicial interpretation of the special provisions
 Earlier Articles 15(4) and 16(4) were
considered as an exception to Art 15(1) and
Art 16(1)
 But in State of Kerela v. N.M. Thomas - these
special provision (i.e. Articles 15(4) and 16(4))
are interpreted as an enabling provision.

7. Self Proclaimed Backwardness : Reverse Discrimination
 Forward class assert backwardness
 Creation of obstacles in providing the
benefits of reservation to those who
actually need it.

8. Mandal, Liberty and the Caste System
 Assigns people different social worth based on
their occupation
 Deny people the freedom to switch occupation.

9. Reservation and Equality
 The focus should be on equalizing
peoples capabilities
 Reservation is among a host of policies
aimed at ensuring social justice.

10. Conclusion
 Uniform and universal education into a level
playing ground
 Remove caste first
 Caste damages and not the reservation.

11. thank you