Imbalanced scale representing India's affirmative action crisis.

Fairness Under Fire: Can Market Design Fix India's Affirmative Action Crisis?

Mira Elwood in Politics & Policy September 2025 • 4 min read.

"Explore how subtle technical oversights in India's affirmative action policies sparked a constitutional crisis and discover potential market design solutions that promote equitable outcomes."

India’s affirmative action policies, known as vertical reservations (VR), are designed to uplift socially and economically disadvantaged communities. Embedded in the Constitution, these policies aim to level the playing field, but recent amendments have stirred significant controversy. A 3-2 split verdict by the Supreme Court highlighted deep divisions over the inclusion—or exclusion—of economically weaker sections (EWS) from these affirmative action measures.

The core issue? The introduction of the EWS quota, intended to address economic hardship, has inadvertently created an exclusionary system. Dissenting justices argued that it violates the fundamental principles of equality by preventing socially and educationally disadvantaged classes from accessing these new benefits. This clash exposes a critical flaw in the policy's design: a subtle technical aspect concerning the overlaps between different beneficiary groups.

This article explores how a seemingly minor technical oversight has escalated into a constitutional crisis, challenging the very fabric of social justice in India. By applying principles of minimalist market design, we will dissect the flaws in the current system and propose alternative policies that ensure fairness and inclusivity, all while respecting the complex social dynamics at play.

The EWS Quota: A Well-Intentioned Policy Gone Wrong?

Imbalanced scale representing India's affirmative action crisis.

The EWS quota, introduced via the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, reserves up to 10% of positions in government jobs and educational institutions for economically weaker sections. Eligibility is restricted to individuals outside the existing Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This has effectively created a separate, and some argue unequal, system of affirmative action.

Critics, including dissenting justices in the Janhit Abhiyan case, argue that this exclusion undermines the very purpose of affirmative action. By preventing those already facing social and educational disadvantages from accessing the EWS quota, the policy perpetuates a cycle of inequality. A member of a privileged group with a lower merit score can secure a position over a financially disadvantaged member of a less privileged group, a direct contradiction of the Equality Code.

Here’s a breakdown of the key issues:

Exclusionary Principle: The policy excludes historically disadvantaged groups from accessing EWS benefits.
Violation of Equality: It allows more privileged individuals to gain an advantage over those less privileged, despite similar economic hardships.
Constitutional Concerns: Dissenting voices argue the amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution by creating an avowedly exclusionary principle.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Janhit Abhiyan case has intensified debates about the true intent and impact of affirmative action in India. Was this a politically motivated decision, or a genuine oversight in policy design? Understanding the nuances of this issue requires a closer examination of the technical aspects of India’s reservation system.

Beyond the Crisis: A Path to Inclusive Affirmative Action

The affirmative action system in India is complex, with a long history. By learning from the mistakes highlighted in Janhit Abhiyan (2022), India can re-envision its affirmative action policies to achieve more equitable and inclusive outcomes, contributing to a society where everyone has a fair chance to succeed.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.10166,

Title: Informed Neutrality In Minimalist Market Design: A Case Study On A Constitutional Crisis In India

Subject: econ.gn q-fin.ec

Authors: Tayfun Sönmez, Utku Ünver

Published: 18-10-2022

Everything You Need To Know

What is the core issue surrounding India's EWS quota?

The core issue revolves around the exclusionary nature of the EWS quota, introduced via the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. It reserves positions for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), but excludes individuals from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This exclusion has led to a situation where those already facing social and educational disadvantages are denied access to benefits, potentially allowing more privileged individuals to gain an advantage. This directly contradicts the initial purpose of affirmative action, as highlighted by the dissenting justices in the Janhit Abhiyan case.

How does the EWS quota potentially violate the principles of equality?

The EWS quota potentially violates equality by allowing individuals from more privileged groups to benefit over those from less privileged groups, even if both face similar economic hardships. For example, a member of a higher caste with a lower merit score could secure a position over a financially disadvantaged member of a lower caste. This outcome is seen as a direct contradiction of the fundamental principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the very purpose of affirmative action programs like the Vertical Reservations (VR) system.

What are the key criticisms of the EWS quota, as highlighted in the article?

The article highlights three key criticisms: First, the policy's exclusionary principle prevents historically disadvantaged groups from accessing EWS benefits. Second, it allows more privileged individuals to gain an advantage over those who are less privileged despite similar economic hardships. Third, dissenting voices argue the amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution by creating an avowedly exclusionary principle. These criticisms underscore the policy's potential to undermine the goals of social justice.

In what context did the Janhit Abhiyan case play a significant role, and what was its outcome?

The Janhit Abhiyan case (2022) played a crucial role in intensifying debates surrounding the intent and impact of affirmative action in India. The Supreme Court delivered a 3-2 split verdict on the inclusion or exclusion of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from affirmative action measures. This split verdict highlighted deep divisions over the implementation of the EWS quota, exposing a critical flaw in the policy's design regarding overlaps between different beneficiary groups. The case ultimately brought to the forefront the exclusionary nature of the EWS quota and its implications for the principles of equality and social justice within the framework of India's affirmative action policies, or Vertical Reservations (VR).

How can India potentially improve its affirmative action policies, according to the article?

The article suggests that by learning from the mistakes highlighted in the Janhit Abhiyan case, India can re-envision its affirmative action policies to achieve more equitable and inclusive outcomes. The focus should be on addressing the exclusionary aspects of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota and ensuring that the Vertical Reservations (VR) system does not inadvertently disadvantage historically marginalized communities. The overall goal is to contribute to a society where everyone has a fair chance to succeed, as the current implementation has revealed subtle technical oversights.