Reservation policy embodies a visionary pursuit of equality and inclusive progress with historical disparity forming the core rationale for it, both in India and Nagaland state.
Rooted in the Indian Constitution, adopted on 26 November 1949 and effective from 26 January 1950, the reservation policy embodies a visionary pursuit of equality and inclusive progress. It aims to uplift historically disadvantaged communities by countering inequities arising from geography and access to opportunities. Proximity to urban centres and early missionary influence conferred advantages on certain tribes—such as the Aos, who embraced Christianity and modern education in 1872, and the Angamis in 1885—leading to higher literacy and economic mobility. In contrast, remote villages in eastern and certain parts of Nagaland received these influences only in the mid-20th century, resulting in persistent lags. This historical disparity forms the core rationale for the policy: to level the playing field for those distanced from progress.
Constitutional pillars
The reservation policy is anchored in robust constitutional safeguards:
Article 15(4): Empowers states to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, including Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Article 16(4): Permits reservations in public employment for underrepresented backward classes.
Article 16(4A): Enables reservations in promotions for SCs/STs (introduced by the 77th Amendment, 1995).
Article 16(4B): Allows carry-forward of unfilled SC/ST vacancies without breaching the 50% ceiling.
Articles 330 and 332: Reserve seats for SCs/STs in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies.
Article 334: Provides a renewable timeline for such reservations (originally 10 years, extended periodically).
Article 335: Ensures SC/ST claims are consistent with maintaining administrative efficiency.
Articles 243D and 243T: Mandate reservations in panchayats and municipalities.
The 103rd Amendment (2019) introduced a 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) under Articles 15(6) and 16(6).
Nationally, reservations are allocated as follows:
- SC: 15%
- ST: 7.5%
- OBC: 27%
- EWS: 10%
- PwD: 3–5% (horizontal).
State-level variations include:
- Andhra Pradesh: SC 15%, ST 6%, OBC 29%, EWS 10%
- Arunachal Pradesh: ST 80%
- Assam: SC 7%, ST 15%, OBC 27%, EWS 10%
- Bihar: SC 20%, ST 2%, OBC 43%, EWS 10%
- Tamil Nadu: SC 18%, ST 1%, OBC 50%
- Nagaland: 80% for STs, with intra-tribal quotas.
Successive Nagaland governments, recognising educational, economic, and social disparities—particularly among backward tribes—have leveraged Articles 15(4) and 16(4) to implement targeted measures.
Ongoing debates and challenges
Prolonged implementation without periodic reassessment has fuelled controversy. Advanced tribes contend that the policy is outdated, as some backward tribes have made significant strides, while poorer members of advanced tribes remain excluded—a claim that is factually untenable under the policy’s design. They advocate creamy-layer exclusion, minimum qualifying marks, and reallocation of unfilled posts. Backward tribes, however, defend its continuation, citing enduring gaps in education, infrastructure, and representation.
Protests intensified in 2024–2025, led by the Committee on Review of Reservation Policy (CoRRP). A July 2025 sit-in in Kohima decried the policy as “oppressive.” The state government pledged to constitute a review commission, but delays, coupled with resistance—including outright rejection by some tribes—have stalled progress. Any amendment must align with the Supreme Court’s August 2024 ruling in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh, which permits sub-classification within SC/ST categories if backed by quantifiable, contemporaneous data on inadequacy of representation. Regrettably, the absence of updated tribe-wise employment and socio-economic data impedes evidence-based reform.
A common grievance—that backward tribe candidates can compete in both reserved and unreserved categories, thereby “depriving” others—is misplaced. This merit-based selection is standard practice in central services and bodies such as the UPSC and state public service commissions. For instance, in UPSC examinations, an ST candidate securing a general merit rank is appointed against an unreserved vacancy, preserving reserved quotas for others. Such objections misinterpret the policy’s intent and contradict parliamentary legislation.
Nagaland’s Reservation Policy: Bridging tribal disparities
Nagaland, constituted as a state in 1963 with nearly 90% ST population, introduced job reservations in 1967, reserving 80% of government posts for indigenous tribes. In 1977, a 25% sub-quota within this was earmarked for seven “backward” tribes (later expanded to ten) from eastern and certain areas of Nagaland, based on pronounced educational and economic disadvantage. By the 1980s, this rose to 33%, leaving 67% for open competition—predominantly secured by five “advanced” tribes.
The 2001 Roster System intended to ensure equitable rotation per department and post category has instead exacerbated inefficiencies. For example, in the Prison Department, if three LDA posts are advertised, the first is reserved for a specific backward tribe; subsequent vacancies may arise years later without triggering reservation, delaying a tribe’s turn by 10–15 years.
The quota has since been raised to 37% (25% for ENPO-area tribes + 2% specifically for Sümi of Kiphire under ENPO area), reducing open competition to 63%—a segment still dominated by advanced tribes, as evidenced by recent NPSC and NSSB results. This leaves a meagre share for backward tribes.
Recommendation
Scrap the 2001 Roster System and revert to the 1980 model of a 33% pooled reservation for all backward tribes, allowing the best qualified among them to secure posts. Prolonged backlog vacancies—held open for years awaiting candidates from a designated tribe—are anachronistic in a fast-evolving society. Such posts should be filled on merit from available candidates, irrespective of tribal affiliation, to resolve the current impasse.
Judicial and Political Context
The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling mandates empirical data for sub-classification, placing the onus on Nagaland to compile tribe-wise metrics.
In August 2024, Chief Minister Dr. Neiphiu Rio informed the Assembly that the 1977 policy was envisaged for a decade but perpetuated via a 1989 order due to persistent under-representation and backwardness among targeted tribes. This is the truth.
Insisting that backward tribe candidates be barred from unreserved seats echoes a knowing falsehood, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observed: “We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying.”
A Path forward
Nagaland’s reservation policy remains a constitutional instrument for equity, having uplifted marginalised tribes while exposing the need for recalibration. Balancing merit, fairness, and tribal realities demands rigorous data collection and inclusive dialogue. As of October 2025, the issue remains unresolved, with protests underscoring the urgency of reform that honours the Constitution’s pledge of justice.
Backward tribes continue to lag in multiple domains despite incremental gains—the very outcome visionary leaders like Vizol Angami sought to avert. Full parity with advanced tribes may require decades more. The policy itself is constitutionally sound and protected; its implementation alone warrants refinement.
S. Akho Leyri
Kohima