top of page

Equity in Diversity: Unravelling the Debate on Reservations for Muslims in India

*Shivansh Pathak and Sanskriti Agrawal

Introduction


The row about the OBC reservation for Muslims has once again come to the fore following the Rajasthan government's decision to review the same in the state. This move comes in the wake of Prime Minister Modi's assertion that the OBC reservation for Muslims contradicts the constitution, which prohibits reservations based on religious grounds. Last year, the government in Karnataka made a significant move to abolish the 4% reservation allocated for all Muslims under the 2-B category. However, the move faced immediate legal challenges, and the matter was promptly brought before the Supreme Court. As a result, the implementation of the decision was put on hold, pending a final ruling. Throughout the country, various states have adopted different methods to provide reservations for Muslims. However, Karnataka and Kerala stand out in that they have incorporated provisions for the reservation for the Muslim community as a whole. The Supreme Court in the landmark Indra Sawhney judgment, deliberated upon the debate of reservation of non-Hindu backward communities and noted that in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar used the word ‘communities’ instead of ‘castes’, indicating its broader scope to include not only Hindu castes but also various other groups. However, the debate on extending this concept to Muslim OBC reservations persists. This paper analyses the constitutionality of creating reservations for socio-economically disadvantaged groups within the Muslim community, similar to Hindus. It also aims to persuasively argue against reserving benefits solely based on religious affiliation for the Muslim community as a whole.


Socio-economic Reservations for Backward Groups within the Muslim Community: Is the Right Approach?


At the outset, it is imperative to understand the constitutional framework for reservations and then to examine whether it can be extended to groups within different religions other than the Indic religions. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution give the state the authority to create special provisions for the advancement of any class of citizens who fall into socially or educationally disadvantaged categories. The reason why the words ‘class of citizen’ were used instead of ‘caste’ was sufficiently stressed in the Constituent Assembly debates. In the Indra Sawhney judgment, the Supreme Court observed that Dr. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly, consistently used the term ‘communities’, indicating a broader scope beyond just castes among Hindus, hence encompassing various other social groups as well. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore noted that if caste alone were the criterion for assessing social backwardness, the test would fail for many segments of Indian society that don't adhere to the traditional Hindu caste system. Furthermore, in the case of T. Muralidhar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the court noted that the state must consider the requests of all groups, regardless of religion, when contemplating affirmative action. This stance underscores the recognition of groups beyond the Hindu castes, including segments within Muslims, as potentially belonging to socially and educationally disadvantaged categories deserving of affirmative measures. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court including the then Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, in the case of Vasant Kumar v. State of Karnataka, emphasised the inclusion of non-Hindu citizens in the OBC category and noted that ‘Backward Classes’ used in the Constitution referred not only to those who were born in particular castes but also to those who belonged to particular races, tribes or religious minorities which were backward. Hence, it is clear the constitution permits backward groups among different religious communities to be considered for affirmative action based on their social and educational backwardness.

It is to be noted, that despite the widespread misconception that caste-like divides do not exist in Islam, social stratification within the Muslim community is well-documented in data derived from the 1901 census.  Further, various commissions have acknowledged the socio-economic hierarchies among Muslims. The Kaka Kalelkar Commission in 1955 was the first to acknowledge Muslim social hierarchies formally. Further, by designating around 200 Muslim communities as OBCs, the Mandal Commission in 1980 further supported the fact that caste-like systems and social regression are not exclusive to Hindus. Significantly, the Justice Rajinder Sachar Committee in 2006 concluded that Muslims also face socio-economic disadvantages, and emphasised how affirmative action is necessary to improve the well-being of the community. In conclusion, the constitutional framework and judicial precedents affirm the necessity and legitimacy of extending affirmative action to socially and educationally disadvantaged groups across all religious communities, including Muslims, to address entrenched socio-economic disparities.


Exploring the Constitutional Landscape: Full Community Reservation for Muslims


Having scrutinized the legitimacy of reservations within the Muslim community, it is crucial to assess if extending reservations to the entire Muslim community is constitutionally sound or if it constitutes a religion-based reservation, deemed impermissible by the courts. In Andhra Pradesh, multiple efforts to implement reservations for the entire Muslim community have faced setbacks in the high courts, primarily due to procedural issues. However, the final decision is still pending before the Supreme Court. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution permit the State to enact special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, including reservations in appointments to address underrepresentation. In the Indra Sawhney case, the Supreme Court referred to the expression ‘classes of citizen’ and held that it indicates a homogenous section of people who are grouped because of certain likeliness and common traits, and who are identifiable by some common attributes. The court noted that neither religion nor place of birth would be the uniform element of common attributes to make them a class of citizens. Further, in the same case, the  Court noted that Articles 15(1) and 16(1) mandate reasonable classification for ensuring the attainment of equality of opportunity. To ensure equality of opportunity, it may be necessary in certain situations to treat unequally situated persons unequally. Hence, to establish the entire Muslim community as a socially and educationally backward group, it would require empirical evidence demonstrating common socioeconomic disadvantages and similar levels of backwardness in education and social development faced by Muslims, as a group.


However, the Sachar committee, formed to examine the socioeconomic status of the Muslim community found that Muslims in India do not exist as a monolith, and emphasised the presence of descent-based social stratification among them. The committee relied upon various sources including the data from 19011911 and the 2001 census as well as the data from the National Sample Survey Organisation 2006, and concluded that the Hindu caste system's features, including hierarchical social groups, endogamy, and hereditary occupation, are mirrored in Indian Muslim society. It identifies four main groups within the same: (i) Ashrafs with foreign origins like Arabia, Persia, Turkistan, or Afghanistan, (ii) upper caste Hindus turned Muslim, (iii) middle caste converts, and (iv) converts from former untouchable castes. The committee recommended that different groups require different types of affirmative action. 


The need to acknowledge intra-community disparities has also been emphasised recently by the National Commission for Backward Classes [“NCBC”], which has criticized general categorizations that label entire communities as backward. The position taken by the NCBC emphasizes the significance of a nuanced approach to reservations, one that takes into account the complexity and diversity of the Muslim community. Hence, it becomes clear that treating Muslims as a homogeneous group may not fully align with constitutional principles. The stratification within the Muslim community underscores the complexity of any policy proposing reservations for the entire community. Given the complexity and diversity within the Muslim community as a whole, the reservation for the whole community runs counter to the constitutional mandate to base affirmative action on identifiable groups facing socio-economic disadvantage, rather than religious affiliation alone. 


Blanket reservation vis-a-vis equality of opportunity


While explaining the term ‘backwards’ in the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. Ambedkar stated that the Drafting Committee had to produce a formula which would reconcile equality of opportunity with reservations in favour of certain communities. Dr. Ambedkar noted that for reservations to align with the principle of equality of opportunity, they must be limited to a minority of seats. Therefore, the rationale behind inserting the term ‘backwards’ was that, non- insertion of the same would unnecessarily inflate the exception created in favour of reservations, leaving no room for the rule to operate.  


Building on the same line of argument the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while striking down the reservation for the Muslim community, partly reasoned that the NCBC failed to recognise the established heterogeneity of the Muslim community. Further, the separate quota for Muslims is disputed by the Muslim backward communities, who resist any attempt at bundling of unequal which underscores the complexity and impracticality of applying blanket reservations across such a heterogeneous community. Therefore, providing reservations to the Muslim community as a whole will make the exception made for reservation so huge that it defies the intention of the constitutional makers as it was originally intended to uplift the truly disadvantaged and marginalised sections, rather than applying blanket measures for poverty eradication. Furthermore, poverty eradication was never the intention of the reservation, their core mandate is addressing discrimination-induced deprivation, not economic status alone. Also, poverty and deprivation due to discrimination are not complementary to each other; the latter, not the former, is the core mandate of reservation policies. Therefore, poverty within the Muslim community of a particular state does not in itself warrant a blanket reservation. Doing the same would run counter to the intent of the constitution makers. 


Conclusion


In conclusion, the debate surrounding reservations for socio-economically disadvantaged groups within the Muslim community underscores the complexity of balancing constitutional principles with the imperative of addressing historical injustices and social inequalities. While the constitutional framework allows for special provisions to uplift socially and educationally backward classes, extending reservations to the entire Muslim community presents the challenge of its alignment with the constitutional ideals of equality of opportunity. The heterogeneous nature of the Muslim community, as highlighted by various commissions and observations from the judiciary, necessitates a nuanced approach that acknowledges intra-community disparities and avoids blanket measures that may undermine the intended purpose of affirmative action. Affirmative action must remain focused on rectifying historical injustices and promoting genuine socio-economic upliftment. This approach necessitates acknowledging intra-community diversity, substantiating policies with empirical evidence of socio-economic disadvantage, and ensuring constitutional compliance by avoiding broad, religious-based reservations.


*Shivansh Pathak and Sanskriti Agrawal are 2nd-year law students at National Law Institute University, Bhopal.


The views expressed above are the author's alone and do not represent the beliefs of Pith & Substance: The CCAL Blog.


1 comentário


Anmol
Anmol
31 de jul.


Curtir
bottom of page