Vertical and Horizontal Reservations in India

Navigating the Matrix: An Analysis of Vertical and Horizontal Reservations in Indian Law

Introduction

The principle of affirmative action, deeply embedded in the constitutional fabric of India, seeks to remedy historical injustices and ensure equitable representation for disadvantaged sections of society. Reservation policies, a cornerstone of this affirmative action framework, are primarily governed by Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.[1] These policies, however, are not monolithic and manifest in two distinct forms: vertical and horizontal reservations. Understanding the conceptual underpinnings, judicial interpretations, and practical application of these two types of reservations is crucial for appreciating the complexities of India's social justice jurisprudence. This article undertakes a scholarly analysis of vertical and horizontal reservations, drawing upon landmark judicial pronouncements and legal principles to elucidate their distinct characteristics, interplay, and the challenges encountered in their implementation.

Conceptual Framework: Defining Vertical and Horizontal Reservations

The distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations was authoritatively articulated by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney And Others v. Union Of India And Others (1992)[2]. This seminal judgment laid the groundwork for subsequent judicial discourse on the subject.

Vertical Reservations

Vertical reservations are social reservations provided for in favour of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.[3, 4] These reservations aim to address the social and educational backwardness of these communities by ensuring their adequate representation in public employment and educational institutions. Key features of vertical reservations include:

  • They are meant for specific social categories (SC, ST, OBC) and cannot be filled by candidates from the open category or other reserved categories.[5]
  • Candidates belonging to these vertically reserved categories are entitled to compete for non-reserved (open category) posts. If they are selected on their own merit in the open category, their selection is not counted against the quota reserved for their respective social category.[6, 7] The entire reservation quota for that social category remains intact and available.[8]
  • If a candidate from a vertically reserved category migrates to an open category slot based on merit, the vacancy in the reserved category created by such migration must be filled by another person from the same specified social category, lower in rank.[5]
  • Unfilled vacancies in vertical reservation quotas may be "carried forward" to subsequent recruitment years, subject to applicable rules and the overall 50% ceiling on reservations, which the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney described as a rule of prudence.[2, 5]

Horizontal Reservations

Horizontal reservations, often referred to as special reservations, are provided under Articles 15(1), 15(3), and 16(1) of the Constitution.[3, 4] These reservations are granted to specific classes of beneficiaries such as women, persons with disabilities (PwD), ex-servicemen, dependents of freedom fighters, and sportspersons.[9, 10] Unlike vertical reservations, horizontal reservations "cut across" the vertical reservations and the open category.[2, 11] This is also described as "interlocking reservations."[2, 5] The salient characteristics of horizontal reservations are:

  • They are not inviolate pools or carved in stone like vertical quotas but are premised on their overlaps with vertical categories and the open category.[5]
  • The primary rule for filling horizontal reservation quotas is one of adjustment. The selection process first identifies if candidates from the horizontal category have been selected on merit in the open category, and then within each vertical reservation quota.[5, 12]
  • If the required number of candidates from a special horizontal category (e.g., women) are selected on their own merit within the open category or their respective vertical social category (SC, ST, OBC), the horizontal reservation is considered fulfilled to that extent. No further separate allocation is typically needed.[6]
  • If there is a shortfall in fulfilling the horizontal quota after the initial merit-based selection in open and vertical categories, then the requisite number of candidates from the special horizontal category are brought in by replacing candidates from the bottom of the respective list (open or relevant vertical category).[12, 13]
  • Horizontal reservations generally cannot be carried forward to subsequent recruitment years if suitable candidates are not found.[5]
  • The open category is not a 'quota' but is available to all candidates, male and female, alike, irrespective of their social category, based on merit.[5, 10]

The Interplay and Application: Judicial Precedents

The judiciary has played a pivotal role in clarifying the methodology for implementing these intertwined reservations, ensuring that the constitutional objectives of equality and social justice are harmoniously achieved.

The Foundational Principles: Indra Sawhney and its Progeny

Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India (1992)[2] is the locus classicus on reservation policy in India. While primarily dealing with OBC reservations, the nine-judge bench extensively discussed the nature of reservations under Article 16. The Court explicitly distinguished between vertical and horizontal reservations, stating:

"[A]ll reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped [under Clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations- what is called interlocking reservations."[11]

The Court further clarified that persons selected under a horizontal quota (e.g., for physically handicapped) would be placed in their appropriate vertical category (SC, ST, OBC, or General/Open) by making necessary adjustments, without affecting the overall percentage of vertical reservations.

Clarifying Implementation: Anil Kumar Gupta and Rajesh Kumar Daria

The practical application of these principles was further elaborated in subsequent judgments. In Anil Kumar Gupta And Others v. State Of U.P And Others (1995)[14], the Supreme Court addressed issues in medical admissions arising from flawed implementation of horizontal reservations. The Court emphasized that horizontal reservations should be compartmentalized within vertical reservations to prevent the dilution of seats for each category and ensure fairness to open competition candidates. It outlined a step-by-step process:

  1. Fill the open category (OC) quota based on merit.
  2. Fill each of the social reservation quotas (SC, ST, OBC) based on merit within those categories.
  3. Ascertain the number of candidates belonging to special reservation categories (horizontal) selected in the OC and each vertical quota on their own merit.
  4. If the number of such selected candidates is less than the prescribed horizontal quota, the shortfall is to be made up by selecting candidates from the special reservation category, adjusting them by replacing the last candidates in the OC or the respective vertical category list.

This methodology was reinforced and further clarified in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission And Others (2007)[6, 15]. The Court found that the RPSC had erroneously treated the horizontal reservation for women as a vertical one, leading to an over-selection of women. It reiterated the "adjustment" principle:

"Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of 'Scheduled Caste women'. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes."[7]

This principle applies analogously to the open category as well. The Court stressed that the principle applicable to vertical reservations (where meritorious reserved candidates moving to open category do not deplete the reserved pool) does not apply to horizontal reservations.[6, 7]

The "Adjustment" Principle and Migration in Horizontal Reservations: The Saurav Yadav Clarification

A significant development in the jurisprudence of horizontal reservations, particularly for women, came with the Supreme Court's decision in Saurav Yadav And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others (2020)[5, 10, 16]. The case dealt with the selection of constables in Uttar Pradesh and the contentious issue of whether women from reserved social categories (OBC-Female, SC-Female) who scored higher than the cut-off for General Category-Female could be accommodated in the General Category-Female slots. The Court endorsed what it termed the "first view" adopted by several High Courts (Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand, Gujarat), which allows such migration.

Justice U.U. Lalit, in his concurring opinion (which formed the majority view on this point), clarified that if a woman candidate belonging to a vertically reserved category (e.g., OBC-Woman) secures marks higher than the last selected candidate in the Open Category-Woman slot, she is entitled to be selected in the Open Category-Woman slot. This selection would then count towards the horizontal quota for women in the open category. Her selection in the open category would not affect the vertical reservation for OBCs, which would be filled by other OBC candidates in order of merit. This approach ensures that merit is given primacy while fulfilling the horizontal reservation quotas for women across all categories, including the open category. The Court explicitly stated that the "open category is not a 'quota', but rather available to all women and men alike."[5, 10] This ruling harmonizes the principle of merit with the objective of ensuring adequate representation for women.

The Court in Saurav Yadav also reiterated that horizontal reservations are about adjustment and cannot be carried forward. The process involves examining, on merit, if any horizontal category candidates are adjusted in the open category list, and then in the quota for such horizontal category within the particular specified social reservation.[5]

Compartmentalized v. Overall Horizontal Reservation

The reference materials also touch upon "compartmentalized" versus "overall" horizontal reservation.[3, 12] Compartmentalized horizontal reservation implies that a fixed number or percentage of seats for a special category (e.g., women) is earmarked within each vertical category (SC, ST, OBC, General) and these are not inter-transferable between vertical categories.[3, 12] However, even in such cases, seats allotted to the open category can be claimed by any meritorious candidate, including those from reserved categories.[12] The adjustment process described in Anil Kumar Gupta and Rajesh Kumar Daria, and refined in Saurav Yadav, effectively ensures that the overall horizontal quota is met by drawing candidates from the open category first (if meritorious horizontal candidates are available there) and then from the respective vertical categories, thus operating as an "overall" adjustment while respecting the boundaries of vertical quotas for their initial filling.

Specific Issues and Nuances

Relaxations and Horizontal Reservations: The Deepa E.V. Case

The case of Deepa E.V v. Union Of India And Others (2017)[17] highlights an important nuance regarding concessions availed by reserved category candidates. The Supreme Court held that an OBC candidate who availed age relaxation (a concession specific to the OBC category) could not claim eligibility to be considered under the general category, especially when the recruitment rules explicitly barred such migration for those availing category-specific relaxations. This underscores that while meritorious reserved category candidates can compete for open category seats, this principle might be qualified by specific service rules, particularly when concessions like age relaxation (not available to general category candidates) have been utilized.

Challenges in Implementation

Despite clear judicial pronouncements, the implementation of vertical and horizontal reservations continues to pose challenges. Common errors include:

  • Treating horizontal reservations as vertical ones, leading to over-representation of certain categories and denial of opportunity to meritorious candidates, as seen in Rajesh Kumar Daria.[6]
  • Incorrect application of the adjustment principle, particularly in determining how meritorious candidates from horizontal categories who secure positions in the open or vertical lists affect the fulfillment of the horizontal quota.
  • Misunderstanding the implications of migration of meritorious reserved category candidates (MRCs) to open category seats, especially in the context of horizontal quotas for women after the Saurav Yadav judgment.[5]

The complexity of the interplay requires meticulous adherence to the procedures laid down by the Supreme Court to ensure that the reservation policies achieve their intended objectives without causing undue prejudice or arbitrariness.

Conclusion

Vertical and horizontal reservations are integral components of India's affirmative action landscape, designed to foster an inclusive and equitable society. Vertical reservations address historical social disadvantages of SC, ST, and OBC communities, while horizontal reservations aim to ensure representation for other specific groups like women and persons with disabilities across all social categories. The Indian judiciary, through a series of landmark judgments, has meticulously delineated the distinct nature of these reservations and the precise methodology for their application. The core principles involve filling open category seats first on merit, followed by vertical category seats, and then adjusting for horizontal reservations by accommodating meritorious candidates from special categories within the open and vertical lists, or by replacing candidates from the bottom of these lists if a shortfall in the horizontal quota persists.

The evolution of jurisprudence, particularly with judgments like Indra Sawhney, Anil Kumar Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Daria, and Saurav Yadav, reflects a continuous effort to balance the imperatives of social justice with the principles of merit and administrative efficiency. Ensuring correct and uniform implementation of these complex rules remains a critical task for state instrumentalities to uphold the constitutional promise of equality of opportunity for all citizens.

References