It is rare, in India’s fractious polity, to see almost all its major political parties agreed on a policy proposal. However, that unusual sight is currently visible in the general agreement, at a recent all-party meeting, to the need to ensure that reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government promotions stand up to judicial scrutiny. One of the dissenters, the Samajwadi Party, doesn’t object to the nature of the provision, but to its scope, saying that Other Backward Classes, or OBCs, its main political base, should not be ignored. This lack of discussion and debate over what is, after all, a far-reaching and important issue is worrying.
There are several issues at work here. The principle of reservations in selection for government posts is relatively uncontroversial and has stood up to several judicial tests. The questions begin to pile up, however, when the beneficiaries of those original quotas start moving up hierarchies. Further quotas in promotions were at first struck down by the courts, though a five-year window was permitted, as a “special case”. Before the five-year window closed, amendments to the Constitution were passed enabling such reservations in promotion decisions. Yet the questions did not stop there. For example, what happens when someone gains exceptional seniority through reservations in selection — but then demands the benefits of seniority when it comes to general-category selection for further promotion? This phenomenon, the consequential seniority that accrues from quota-based accelerated promotion, was permitted by the courts — as long as state governments can show “compelling reasons” for them, such as continuing backwardness or administrative efficiency. The Uttar Pradesh government’s recent service rules, which allowed for consequential seniority for reserved candidates, were held by the Supreme Court recently to show no such compelling reasons — requiring all India’s parties to meet to find a way out.
These issues should receive more political scrutiny. The theory that there could be cascading effects of reservations at every level should not be ignored; it can be demoralising and demotivating for a cadre to have its rules of seniority upended so thoroughly. Certainly, to the extent government promotions include those in public sector enterprises, extensive reservations might undermine the merit-based efficiency corporate structures demand. Even though seniority by itself cannot be said to be the same as “merit” and well-embedded social biases may often lead to institutional biases influencing promotion decisions, the idea of subjecting promotions to a reservation policy will be counterproductive and is likely to have adverse consequences for overall productivity and efficiency. The prime minister, while addressing the all-party meeting, asked for opinions “so that a legally sustainable solution can be arrived at”. Indeed, there should be a broad-based search for avenues to address institutional biases that do not wind up demotivating government servants. Of course, how that could happen if political parties are not willing to debate the issue and possible ways out in public, or on the floor of the House, is open to question.