Reservation vs Merit: A Difficult Question

Can India pursue social justice while also ensuring that merit and hard work are rewarded?

Reservation Vs Merit: A Difficult Question

There are some questions in India that are almost impossible to discuss without emotion.

Reservation is one of them.

For a student preparing for JEE, NEET, CUET or another competitive examination, the issue can feel very personal. A student from the General Category may look at two different cut-offs and ask:

"If I scored higher, why didn't I get the seat?"

At the same time, a student from a historically disadvantaged community may ask a very different question:

"If my family and community have faced generations of social and educational exclusion, why should I be expected to compete as though we all started from the same point?"

Both questions are legitimate.

And that is precisely why I think students should learn to discuss reservation with a little more nuance than simply calling it either "anti-merit" or "social justice."

A Remarkable Coincidence

There is an interesting coincidence as I write this article.

On 24, 25 and 26 August 1949 exactly 77 years ago this week, the Constituent Assembly was debating questions around reservation.

The discussion then was primarily about reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in legislatures. Members were already debating questions that remain relevant today: How long should such safeguards continue? How should progress be measured? And what happens if the underlying disadvantage has not disappeared?

It is important to clarify that the ten-year provision being discussed at the time applied to political representation in legislatures, not to every form of reservation in education and employment.

Seventy-seven years later, India has changed enormously. Yet some of those fundamental questions remain.

How do we address historical disadvantage while ensuring that merit and hard work continue to matter?

Perhaps that is where today's conversation should begin.

Why did reservation come into existence?

India's caste system created centuries of social exclusion.

Large sections of Indian society were denied access to education, temples, public spaces, occupations and positions of social power. Even after independence, simply declaring everybody equal before the law could not instantly erase the accumulated effects of generations of discrimination.

The Constitution therefore provided for special measures for socially and educationally backward classes and for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The underlying idea was not that some Indians were inherently more deserving than others.

It was that treating people identically after generations of unequal treatment does not necessarily produce equality of opportunity.

Consider two students.

One grows up in a family where both parents are highly educated. The student attends an excellent private school, has access to coaching, a computer, high-speed internet, books and a quiet place to study.

Another student grows up in a village where neither parent completed school. The school has limited resources. There is no private coaching, limited access to technology and considerable pressure to contribute to the family.

Now suppose the first student scores 95% and the second scores 90%.

Can we simply say that the 95% student demonstrated "more merit"?

Perhaps.

But perhaps the examination score is measuring not only individual ability and hard work, but also the accumulated advantages and disadvantages surrounding the two students.

That is one of the fundamental arguments behind affirmative action.

But where does merit come into the picture?

This is where the conversation becomes difficult.

Competitive examinations exist for a reason. Universities have limited seats. If 100,000 students compete for 5,000 seats, somebody will inevitably be disappointed.

And students who work extremely hard can understandably feel frustrated when they see someone with a lower examination score getting admission through a reserved category.

We should not dismiss that frustration.

Merit matters. Hard work matters. Academic capability matters.

But we also need to recognise that merit is not created in a vacuum.

The question, therefore, should not be:

"Should India have merit or reservation?"

It should be:

"How can India create a system that recognises merit while also correcting genuine and persistent social disadvantage?"

That is a much harder question and probably the more useful one.

Should reservation continue indefinitely?

This is where I believe we need a serious national conversation.

The Constitution's reservation framework has evolved significantly over the decades. Different provisions address different purposes, and the ten-year provision that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar discussed in the Constituent Assembly related specifically to political representation for SC/ST communities in legislatures. It should not be presented as though the entire reservation system was originally designed to disappear after ten years.

But the broader question remains valid:

How long should any affirmative-action policy continue in its existing form?

A policy designed to address disadvantage should, ideally, be capable of measuring whether the disadvantage still exists and whether the policy is reaching the people who need it most.

This is not an argument for suddenly abolishing reservation.

It is an argument for regularly evaluating it.

Indian society in 2026 is not the same society that existed in 1950.

Some families and individuals who were once severely disadvantaged have now achieved substantial educational, professional and economic advancement. At the same time, many others within the same broad communities continue to face serious discrimination and lack of opportunity.

These two realities can exist simultaneously.

What about the idea of a "creamy layer"?

This is an especially important part of the debate.

India already recognises the concept of a "creamy layer" for OBC reservation. The basic idea is that relatively advanced sections within a backward class should not necessarily receive the same reservation benefit as those who remain genuinely disadvantaged.

The Supreme Court has continued to examine questions around backwardness, representation and exclusion of the relatively advanced sections. In its 2024 Davinder Singh judgment, the Court also addressed the possibility of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes, subject to constitutional requirements and empirical evidence.

More recently, the Court has reiterated that reservation policy needs to remain connected to genuine backwardness and under-representation, rather than becoming an entitlement detached from those objectives.

This suggests that the debate is already moving beyond the simplistic question of "reservation or no reservation."

The more sophisticated question is:

Who should receive the benefit, for how long, and on what evidence?

That is the conversation India needs to have.

What if a family has benefited for generations?

I personally think this is an idea worth debating, although I would not present it as a simple solution.

Suppose a family has benefited from reservation across two or three generations. The children have received good education, the parents are highly educated professionals, the family is economically secure and they have access to opportunities comparable to those available to other relatively privileged families.

Should the next generation automatically receive exactly the same benefit?

I think it is reasonable to ask that question.

But there is an important complication.

Economic prosperity does not automatically erase social discrimination.

A financially successful person can still face caste-based discrimination. Therefore, simply saying "you are wealthy, so you no longer need any protection" may also be too simplistic.

Any future reform would need to look at multiple dimensions, social disadvantage, educational opportunity, economic circumstances, representation and continuing discrimination.

In other words, we need better targeting, not merely a different form of exclusion.

And what about the General Category student?

This part of the conversation is often ignored.

A General Category student who misses a seat despite achieving a very high score is not necessarily privileged in every practical sense.

They may have worked incredibly hard. They may come from a modest-income family.

They may have attended an ordinary government or low-cost private school. They may not have inherited wealth or social connections.

So the assumption that every General Category student is automatically privileged is also problematic.

Category and individual circumstance are not always the same thing.

This is one reason why the larger conversation needs to become more sophisticated.

We should be able to acknowledge historical discrimination and acknowledge the frustration of students who feel disadvantaged by the present system.

One does not cancel the other.

There is another solution developing quietly

There is an important part of India's economy where the reservation framework operates differently: the private sector.

Private companies recruit primarily according to their own organisational requirements. They need people who can perform, innovate, communicate, solve problems and create value.

That doesn't mean the private sector is perfectly meritocratic. It isn't.

Economic privilege, English-language ability, family networks, educational background and geography can all influence access to opportunities.

But competitive businesses cannot survive for long simply by hiring people based on credentials or identity. Ultimately, they need people who can deliver results.

And this is why I tell students not to define their entire future by an entrance examination.

If you don't get into your first-choice university, your career is not over.

If you are unable to enter IIT, there are other engineering colleges.

If you don't enter AIIMS, there are other medical colleges and healthcare pathways.

If you don't get into a particular university, there are other ways of acquiring knowledge, skills and experience.

The institution you enter at 18 is important. But the capabilities you build over the next 20 years are far more important.

So, is reservation good or bad?

I don't think that is the right question.

Reservation has played an important role in providing representation and educational opportunity to communities that experienced historical exclusion.

At the same time, a system that is designed to correct disadvantage should not be immune from evaluation, reform or criticism.

We need to ask:

Is it reaching those who need it most?

Is it creating genuine educational and social mobility?

Are some benefits being repeatedly captured by relatively advanced sections?

How do we recognise continuing social discrimination?

How do we protect students who are disadvantaged but fall outside existing categories?

And how do we ensure that excellence and hard work continue to matter?

These are difficult questions.

And perhaps that is precisely why they should not be left entirely to politicians.

A message to students

If you are a General Category student who feels frustrated by reservation, don't turn that frustration into hatred towards another community.

And if you are a student who benefits from reservation, don't feel that you have achieved something without merit simply because you received an opportunity through a reserved seat.

Your category does not define your ability.

Once you enter university, you still have to study, learn, compete, build relationships, develop skills and eventually prove yourself in the professional world.

And if you are a student who wants to enter politics, public policy or administration someday, perhaps this is one of the questions you should take seriously.

India will eventually need a system that can hold two principles together:

social justice and individual merit.

The challenge is not choosing one and destroying the other.

The challenge is designing a system where historical disadvantage is addressed, genuine opportunity is expanded, and excellence and hard work continue to be valued.

That is not an easy task.

But building a fairer India was never supposed to be easy.

And perhaps the next generation of students will be the ones who finally have to find a better answer.

Reference:

Constituent Assembly Debate

https://www.constitutionofindia.net/debates/25-aug-1949

About the Author:

Dr SP Mishra is the Founder of India Career Centre, a Hyderabad-based career guidance, study-abroad consulting and educational research organisation. He writes and speaks on career decision-making, higher education, skills, employability and the future of work in India. Also hosts the India Career Centre Podcast. Connect on LinkedIn.