by Dileep Verma, Dr Pushpender Yadav, Hariom Tiwari and Shashikant Nishant Sharma
A reserved university seat can change a life. For students from communities historically excluded from higher education, it can offer access to qualifications, professional careers and greater economic security. But a reserved seat is only useful to someone who can reach the admissions process in the first place. This raises a question that deserves more attention in debates about affirmative action in India: do households within the same disadvantaged community have an equal chance of using reservation benefits? Our recently accepted study in Policy Reviews in Higher Education explores this question among Scheduled Caste (SC) households in Madhya Pradesh. Its central message is that legal entitlement matters, but household resources also shape who reports using educational opportunities.
Looking beyond university admissions
Reservation policy is designed to counter longstanding caste-based exclusion. Much of the public debate focuses on quotas, admission criteria and the number of students entering higher education institutions. These are important measures, but they reveal only part of the picture. Before a student applies to university, their family may have spent years managing school fees, travel costs, examination preparation and uncertainty about further study. Some households know how to navigate admission systems and scholarship applications. Others may be approaching higher education for the first time. Studying households allows us to see these differences more clearly. It also avoids looking only at students who have already succeeded in entering a college or university.
What we studied
We surveyed 348 SC households across nine districts of Madhya Pradesh between January and April 2025. We selected the districts to capture different regional and socio-economic settings. One adult respondent provided information about the household, including whether any member had used reservation benefits in a higher education institution. We examined three characteristics: the respondent’s occupation, educational attainment and annual household income. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s chi-square tests helped us identify patterns of association. Of the 348 households, 290 (83.33%) reported that at least one member had utilised reservation benefits in higher education, while 58 (16.67%) reported no such use. This finding applies only to the surveyed households, not to all SC households in Madhya Pradesh.
The differences within one community
Reservation utilisation was not evenly distributed across the sample. All three characteristics we examined, occupation, education, and income, showed statistically significant associations with reported utilisation (p < 0.001). Households represented by respondents with undergraduate, postgraduate or doctoral qualifications reported higher utilisation than those with lower educational attainment. This may reflect differences in knowledge of admissions, familiarity with universities or the support available to younger family members. Our data cannot establish which of these explanations is responsible.
Income also mattered. Higher-income households reported greater utilisation than lower-income households. A reserved seat may reduce one barrier to admission, but students can still face costs for transport, accommodation, books and the time required to complete their studies.
Occupational background showed a similar pattern. Respondents in government employment all reported that at least one household member had used reservation benefits, whereas reported utilisation was lower among labourers. These differences should not be read as proof that a particular occupation causes reservation uptake. They do suggest that access to formal institutions and economic security may be relevant.
What the findings do – and do not – show
The results highlight inequalities within a community that shares a history of caste-based disadvantage. They do not undermine the case for reservation. Instead, they suggest that reservation operates within a broader educational and economic landscape, where some households are better placed than others to use available opportunities. There are limits to our evidence. The study is cross-sectional and records whether a household reported any utilisation, rather than tracing individual students over time. The analysis identifies associations, not causal effects. Although the sample covers nine districts, it does not separately test rural–urban differences. Future work should examine these geographical patterns and the experiences of first-generation students in more detail.
Making opportunity usable
What should universities and policymakers take from this? First, access policy should begin before admission. Better school preparation, bridging courses, and guidance can help students qualify for higher education and navigate applications. Second, scholarships, affordable hostels, travel assistance and academic support can reduce the costs of taking up an opportunity. These measures are especially relevant to households with limited income and insecure employment. Third, outreach should reach families who have little previous experience of universities. Clear information, local counselling and application support can make a difference without changing the legal basis of reservation. Finally, evaluation should ask not only how many reserved seats are filled, but also which households use them, which do not and what prevents participation. Household-level evidence can complement institutional enrolment statistics.
Reservation creates a vital entitlement. A more inclusive higher education system must also ensure that students from the least-resourced households have a realistic opportunity to claim it. The next policy question is not simply who is eligible for a seat, but who can actually reach it.
Dileep Verma is a PhD Research Scholar and Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal. His research focuses on political science, public policy, affirmative action, Dalit studies and educational inequality.
Dr Pushpender Yadav is an Associate Professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal. His research interests include public administration, public policy, social inclusion and pension reforms.
Hariom Tiwari is a Research Scholar in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal. His scholarly work includes research on social policy, higher education, and socio-economic inequalities in India.
Shashikant Nishant Sharma is a Research Scholar in the Department of Architecture and Planning at Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal. His academic interests include urban planning, regional development, skill development and socio-economic inclusion.
