CASTE, CLASS, AND THE QUOTA CONUNDRUM- WHO REALLY BENEFITS?

India's reservation regime stands at the uneasy intersection of historical redress and contemporary contestation. Often defended as the cornerstone of social justice and criticised as an instrument of reverse discrimination, caste-based quotas continue to provoke fundamental questions about equality, merit, and representation. This article critically interrogates India's affirmative action framework to ask a deceptively simple but deeply consequential question: who really benefits from reservations? Drawing upon Critical Legal Studies (CLS), constitutional jurisprudence, and social justice theory, the article traces the evolution of reservation policies from their constitutional origins under Articles 15 and 16 to judicially imposed limits such as the creamy layer doctrine and the 50 per cent ceiling. It situates landmark decisions like Indra Sawhney and Janhit Abhiyan within broader ideological shifts, particularly the introduction of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota, which marks a significant move from caste-based to class-based criteria. The article argues that while reservations remain a morally and constitutionally necessary tool of reparative justice, their contemporary operation reveals structural limitations. Benefits are often captured by relatively privileged subgroups within backward classes, transforming reservations into instruments of class mobility rather than caste emancipation. From a CLS perspective, the law's formalism risks offering symbolic inclusion without dismantling entrenched hierarchies of caste power. By incorporating intersectionality, accounting for caste, class, gender, and geography, the article contends that India's reservation discourse must evolve beyond rigid categories. It concludes by advocating reform rather than rollback, calling for a more nuanced, data-driven, and multidimensional model of affirmative action that advances substantive equality rather than merely redistributing limited opportunities.