Dharmasastras historically codified and perpetuated the stratification and occupational roles associated with the caste system in India, exploiting 'lower' caste members as subservient to the 'upper' castes . These texts institutionalized hierarchical barriers, reinforcing social inequalities with religious sanction, particularly discriminating against the so-called 'fourth class' or lower castes. Post-independence legal measures, such as the Indian Constitution's provisions like Articles 15, 16, and 17, and laws including the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, aim to dismantle these entrenched inequalities by prohibiting discrimination and fostering social justice, equity, and protection for historically oppressed communities .

The Indian Constitution ensures equality of opportunity in public employment primarily through Article 16(1), which mandates equal opportunity for all citizens regarding employment or appointment to any state office . Article 16(4) allows the state to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts for backward classes not adequately represented in services under the state . This constitutional design aims to balance the principle of equality with necessary affirmative action, ensuring broad inclusiveness in public employment.

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice in any form . This article carries profound implications as it criminalizes actions based on untouchability, making any enforcement of disability arising out of it an offense punishable by law. This constitutional mandate has led to the enactment of specific legislations such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, which provide the legal framework for protecting the rights of marginalized communities and ensuring their full participation in society free from historical stigmas and injustices .

Protective discrimination in the Indian Constitution is primarily facilitated through Articles 15(3) and 15(4). Article 15(3) allows the state to make special provisions for women and children, addressing the need for protective measures due to their relative vulnerability . Article 15(4) enables the state to legislate for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and SC and ST, reflecting protective discrimination beyond gender protection . In policy, these provisions manifest as reserved quotas in educational institutions and public services, legislations safeguarding rights and welfare, and affirmative action programs aiming to create an equitable framework in social, educational, and employment contexts.

Article 15(3) allows the state to enact 'protective discrimination' laws, acknowledging the societal and biological vulnerabilities of women and children that necessitate special provisions . This form of discrimination is protective as opposed to negative, aiming to level the playing field by ensuring adequate support and opportunities in social, educational, and professional spheres. It aligns with broader gender equality objectives by actively working to dismantle barriers — legal, social, economic — that contribute to historical gender inequities, thereby striving toward an equitable society where gender does not impede individual potential or rights.

The Indra Sawhney case, often associated with the Mandal Commission, was pivotal in shaping India’s reservation policy by upholding the constitutional validity of reserving posts for OBCs while articulating limits on reservation extents, namely that reservations should not exceed 50% . This ruling reinforced a balance between social justice (through affirmative action) and the preservation of efficiency in administration (by ensuring a substantial merit-based pool). Consequently, it clarified the scope of Article 16(4), upholding the needs of backward classes without undermining the overall constitutional premise of equal opportunity across varied citizen demographics.

In the case of Balaji vs State of Mysore, the Supreme Court of India held that while special provisions should be provided to socially and backward class people, reservations should not exceed 50% . This ruling is significant because it set a precedent for limiting the extent of reservations, ensuring that the merit pool is not unduly restricted, thereby maintaining a balance between compensatory benefits and the principle of meritocracy. It highlights the court's role in interpreting constitutional provisions to prevent excessive compartmentalization of education seats and employment posts under caste-based reservations.

Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, while both aiming to address social inequalities, differ in scope and application. Article 15(4) empowers the state to create 'special' laws for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes or SC and STs, focusing broadly on social justice . In contrast, Article 16(4) specifically pertains to the reservation of appointments or posts under the state for any backward class, directly targeting employment opportunities . This distinction highlights Article 15(4)'s role in broader social and educational advancement, while Article 16(4) hones in on economic empowerment through employment.

Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution prohibits the state from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them . This indicates a foundational commitment to equality and non-discrimination. Furthermore, the role of the state is expanded in Article 15(4), which empowers the state to create laws for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC and ST). Through these provisions, the state is tasked with actively addressing social inequalities, promoting inclusion, and uplifting marginalized groups, aligning state responsibilities with constitutional ideals.

Dr. Ambedkar termed reservations as 'Compensatory benefits' to address the historical injustices and systemic discrimination faced by the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) at the hands of more privileged castes . This term underscores the intention behind reservations as a remedial measure for historical wrongs where access to education, administration, and economic activities were largely controlled by higher castes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vysyas), pushing the lower castes into marginalized positions. The reservations thus serve as an affirmative action strategy to redress socioeconomic disparities entrenched by centuries of caste-based segregation and discrimination.