Reservation in private universities and colleges is an idea whose time had come long ago. If there was any doubt about its legality, that dispute too was resolved by the Supreme Court more than a decade ago. It is an idea that enjoys the backing of the largest opposition party. True, in the last instance, you cannot stop an idea whose time has come. The trouble is that we live our lives in the instances before the last one, the intermediate space in which the deep state can delay, defer and dodge any idea. This idea needs political will. Now.
Is that political will in the offing? Last week, Jairam Ramesh, Congress general secretary in-charge of communication, issued a statement. On the face of it, the statement is merely to “reiterate” Congress’s long-standing demand for reservation for SC, ST and OBC candidates in private educational institutions. It recalls that in 2005, the Constitution was amended to extend reservation to private educational institutions, that its legality was upheld in 2014, and that this promise was a part of Congress’s manifesto in 2024 and has been backed by a parliamentary committee. Yet the timing of the statement was pregnant with political possibilities.
Story continues below this ad
We do not know if this statement foreshadows the resolution of the Ahmedabad session of the AICC. We do not know how the ruling dispensation would respond to this demand if Congress presses for it. But one thing is sure: We are in for another round of debate on reservation and social justice.
The case for extending reservation to private higher educational institutions (or PHEI, which include “state private universities” and private “deemed universities”, besides aided and unaided private colleges) is straightforward. Higher education is a powerful mechanism for what scholars call “effectively maintained inequality”. Just as historically excluded communities are entering colleges and universities, the institutions they can access are being evacuated of educational quality and employment opportunities. The “happening site” — the upper end of higher education — is being effectively privatised into a space controlled by the upper-class and upper-caste elite. If we are to retain even a modicum of commitment to the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity, the state must step into this domain by extending the existing policy of reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs to private colleges and universities.
We are witnessing two large-scale and long-term movements in the education sector. First, there is an unprecedented surge, a historic wave, in seeking higher education, mainly driven by the belated entry of communities that were historically denied learning. Satish Deshpande summarised this trend: “Between 1990–1991 and 2018–2019, the number of universities has increased almost five-and-a-half times and total enrolment has shot up by seven-and-a-half times, while the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) has gone up by two-and-a-half times.” The rate of growth is higher for all the marginal social groups — SC, ST, OBC and Muslims — and for women within each of these groups.
Story continues below this ad
That should have been good news but for the second phenomenon: The elite exodus from and the collapse of public higher education. We are witnessing the most phenomenal rise in the number of PHEIs. From 2015 to 2024 the number of private universities (including deemed universities) has gone up from 276 to 523. Private universities accounted for 26 per cent of total enrolment in 2021-22. That ratio was more lop-sided at the college level: Private unaided colleges account for about 45 per cent of the total students. The public colleges and universities that the socially disadvantaged communities flock to are overcrowded and under-staffed, starved of even the minimum funds. These are increasingly sites for “time pass” that cannot offer knowledge, skills or jobs. In contrast, private colleges and universities have the desirable classroom size, decent to obscene infrastructure and their pay packages now attract the best faculty.
The cumulative effect of these two shifts is a massive divide in social access to educational opportunities. As Satish Deshpande puts it: “There is something illusory about the widening of access to (higher education) that allows the older elites to maintain their lead — or ‘social distance’ — in (higher education) despite the entry of non-elites.”
The profile of the private HEIs needs no guessing. They do not follow any reservation, except of course the unstated reservation for the rich. The latest All India Survey of Higher Education data for 2021-22 shows that upper-caste Hindus (around 20 per cent of the country’s population) are well over 60 per cent of private university students. Here is the social group-wise breakdown of students in private (state private and deemed private) universities: SCs were just 6.8 per cent (current population share about 17 per cent), STs 3.6 per cent (population around 9 per cent), OBCs 24.9 per cent (population between 45-50 per cent) and Muslims 3.8 per cent (population around 15 per cent). Needless to say, the picture would be even more skewed in the case of elite private universities and the sought-after courses in these institutions.
Reservation can make a difference. If we compare the social profile of students in public sector universities that are required to follow reservation, the difference is obvious: 14.6 per cent SCs, 6 per cent STs, and 31.2 per cent for OBCs. There is little difference in the case of Muslims (4.1 per cent) who do not enjoy reservation. For all its limitations, quota-based affirmative action works.
Hence, the need for the state to step in. Sadly, for all its lovely pronouncements, the new National Education Policy has little to remedy this situation. No matter what the letter of any education policy document says, commercialisation and privatisation of education have been the de-facto education policy of our country for several decades now. The only way of correcting this is through political action. The core of such an action should, of course, be the strengthening of public educational institutions — more funds, better governance, filling of regular faculty vacancies, professional autonomy, updated syllabi and so on. At the same time, this must be supplemented with a mandate to private institutions to follow the national policy of reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs. This should be combined with a requirement to offer freeships and scholarships to a specified proportion of students.
Would this be legally permissible? Jairam Ramesh’s statement effectively answers that question. In 2005, the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution introduced Article 15(5) that allowed the state to make “any special provision” for the advancement of SCs, STs or SEBCs (the legal name for OBCs) which relates to “admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the state, other than the minority educational institutions”. The enabling provision was used by Parliament to pass the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 to provide for reservation for OBCs, but only in central educational institutions. The Supreme Court (Ashok Kumar Thakur vs Union of India, 2008) upheld this reservation for state-run and state-aided institutions, keeping the issue of unaided private institutions open. This remaining issue was also resolved, first by a two-judge bench (IMA vs Union of India, 2011) and then a five-judge bench (Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India, 2014) that upheld reservation in unaided private institutions. So, there is no legal hitch any more.
Bringing this issue to the political agenda would address a massive lacuna in the policy of social justice. Bringing Dalit, Adivasi and pichhada together on the same platform could also redress a deep problem in the politics of social justice.
The writer is member, Swaraj India, and national convenor of Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan. Views are personal
