MS Shanker
Of late, the Congress-led Opposition has come under fire for its alleged religious appeasement tactics. The controversy intensified when the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) openly declared its support for the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance—which includes the Congress, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), and Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena faction—in the upcoming Maharashtra assembly polls. This endorsement has reignited the debate on whether soliciting votes from specific religious communities aligns with the principles of secularism or merely deepens communal divides.
If minority Muslim organizations openly back parties like the Congress, it is seen as secular; however, when Hindu groups extend similar support to the BJP, they are swiftly labelled communal. This apparent double standard raises a critical question: who is truly dividing society along religious lines?
The Indian Constitution, under Article 15, strictly prohibits discrimination by the state on grounds of religion, caste, race, or gender. Additionally, the Election Commission has guidelines that bar parties from appealing for votes based on religion. Yet, political rhetoric often dances on the edge of legality, with parties promising reservations for specific communities to gain electoral mileage.
The Congress-led Opposition has recently promised to provide a 4% reservation for Muslims if it comes to power. However, such a move would be constitutionally questionable. The Constitution, as it stands, does not permit reservations solely on religious grounds. This would require an amendment to existing constitutional provisions or a circumvention of the Supreme Court-imposed 50% cap on reservations. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this limit, emphasizing that it is essential to maintain a balance between affirmative action and merit-based opportunities.
Article 16(4) of the Constitution allows reservations for “any backward class of citizens” that is inadequately represented in public employment. However, it does not explicitly provide for religious reservations. The term “backward class” refers to socially and educationally disadvantaged groups, which may include religious minorities if they meet the criteria of backwardness.
Historically, several state governments have attempted to introduce reservations for Muslims. For instance, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have allocated quotas for Muslims within their Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations. Tamil Nadu, based on the recommendations of the J.A. Ambasankar Commission, set aside 3.5% of its OBC quota for Muslims in 2007. Similarly, Andhra Pradesh provided a 5% reservation for Muslims in 2004 based on a report on their socio-economic status. However, these attempts were often struck down by courts for failing to meet constitutional standards, such as the requirement for data-backed evidence of backwardness.
The Supreme Court has been consistent in its ruling that reservations must not exceed the 50% threshold. In the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India case in 1992, the court reaffirmed this cap to maintain the delicate balance between affirmative action and the right to equality. The court has also emphasized that reservations cannot be granted purely on religious grounds but must be based on socio-educational backwardness.
The Congress and other opposition leaders have criticized the BJP for allegedly using religion and caste as divisive tools. However, their own promises of religious quotas seem to contradict their commitment to constitutional principles. The Opposition leader in the Lok Sabha recently stated that if voted to power, they would amend the Constitution to lift the 50% cap on reservations. This proposal raises concerns about potential amendments that could alter the foundational principles of the Constitution.
The journey of reservations in India began with the establishment of the First Backward Classes Commission in 1953, headed by Kaka Kalelkar. Its report, submitted in 1955, laid the groundwork for identifying socially and educationally backward classes. Over the years, several amendments and commissions have further refined the reservation system.
For instance, the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act of 2018 inserted Article 338B, which established the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC). The 105th Amendment Act, passed in 2021, restored the power of state governments to identify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), highlighting the complex interplay between the central and state authorities on this issue.
A subset of the Muslim community, often categorized as Dalit Muslims, has been demanding inclusion under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. However, the central government has opposed this move, arguing that the SC category is reserved for specific Hindu castes that face unique social discrimination. This issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court, which will have to balance social justice with constitutional mandates.
The debate over religious reservations is not just a legal issue but also a political one. On one hand, the Congress-led Opposition accuses the BJP of sowing communal discord. On the other hand, their own promises of religious quotas raise questions about their commitment to secularism and constitutional propriety. If the Opposition truly seeks to uplift marginalized communities, the focus should be on socio-economic development rather than divisive electoral promises.
The Constitution is clear in its intent to provide affirmative action based on social and educational backwardness, not on religious identity. While state governments like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have tried to include Muslims within the OBC framework, these moves have often been legally contested and struck down. The Supreme Court’s firm stance against exceeding the 50% cap on reservations further complicates the Opposition’s promises.
In the end, the question remains: Is the Congress’s promise of religious reservations genuinely aimed at uplifting the disadvantaged, or is it a calculated move to secure votes? As India heads into critical state elections, the electorate will likely decide whether they see through these promises as constitutional overreach or necessary social justice measures.
The upcoming elections in Maharashtra and Jharkhand may serve as a litmus test for whether voters will endorse or reject this brand of politics. The public is growing increasingly wary of political narratives that threaten constitutional values, and any attempt to tinker with the foundational principles of the Constitution may not sit well with an informed electorate
