New Delhi, September 28, 2026: Union Minister and Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) chief Chirag Paswan has once again taken a strong stand on reservation, saying that any attempt to weaken or alter constitutional safeguards for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes would be unacceptable.

Paswan, a key ally of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), has repeatedly said that reservation is a constitutional right rooted in social discrimination and cannot be treated merely as an economic benefit.

Chirag Paswan Takes Firm Stand on Reservation

The latest political debate has centred on calls from some NDA leaders for a review or sub-categorisation of reservation benefits.

Paswan has strongly opposed such proposals, particularly the idea of introducing a creamy layer within SC reservation.

He has argued that reservation for Scheduled Castes is based on historical and social discrimination, not solely on financial status.

“If they want to change the Constitution, then debate the issue in Parliament,” Paswan said while criticising those calling for a review of the existing reservation system.

Clash With Jitan Ram Manjhi Over Reservation

Paswan’s comments come amid a public disagreement with fellow Union Minister and Hindustani Awam Morcha leader Jitan Ram Manjhi.

Manjhi’s party has supported the idea of sub-categorisation within SC reservation so that more deprived communities can receive a larger share of the benefits.

Paswan, however, has opposed the proposal and earlier called on Manjhi and his son Santosh Suman to resign if they supported changing the existing reservation framework.

The disagreement has highlighted differences among NDA allies on how reservation policy should evolve.

‘Reservation Will Continue’

Paswan has maintained that reservation existed in the past, remains in force today and should continue in the future.

He has also warned against any attempt to reduce its scope.

According to Paswan, those proposing changes to the reservation system must first clearly explain whether such changes would affect the constitutional rights currently available to SC and ST communities.

Chirag Paswan Has Long Called Himself ‘Modi’s Hanuman’

Chirag Paswan has previously described himself as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Hanuman”, a phrase he used publicly to emphasise his political loyalty to Modi.

In a 2020 interview, Paswan said that Prime Minister Modi “stays in my heart” and that he would continue to support him.

Despite that political proximity, Paswan has taken independent positions on certain issues, including reservation and, more recently, questions related to the functioning of the Election Commission.

Paswan Also Asked Election Commission to Clear Public Doubts

In another recent departure from the position taken by several NDA leaders, Paswan said the Election Commission should publicly address concerns raised about the electoral process.

He said that if doubts arise in the minds of citizens regarding elections, the Election Commission itself has a responsibility to clarify them.

His comments came after reports of internal differences within the Election Commission over certain electoral decisions.

Are There Differences Within the NDA?

Recent statements by Paswan and Manjhi show that NDA allies are not speaking with one voice on the reservation issue.

However, there has been no announcement from Paswan that his party is leaving the NDA.

His public statements so far indicate that he remains part of the alliance while continuing to take a separate position on issues such as reservation and constitutional safeguards.

Key Points

• Chirag Paswan has strongly opposed any move to weaken or review SC-ST reservation.
• He says reservation is a constitutional right based on social discrimination.
• Paswan has clashed with Jitan Ram Manjhi over sub-categorisation and creamy-layer proposals.
• He has previously described himself as Prime Minister Modi’s “Hanuman”.
• Paswan remains part of the NDA but has taken independent positions on some issues.
• He has also recently asked the Election Commission to address public concerns over the electoral process.