Copyright infringement not intended

Context:

The Telangana government plans to table a bill to increase Backward Classes (BC) reservations from 25% to 42%, pushing total quotas to 62% in education, employment, and local bodies.

News in Detail

The bill follows the Kamareddy Declaration signed by the Chief Minister ahead of the 2023 elections. However, this move risks legal challenges, as seen in Bihar (2023) and Maharashtra (2021), where courts struck down similar attempts citing the Supreme Court’s 50% reservation ceiling.

Supreme Court Judgments Shaping the 50% Rule

M.R. Balaji v/s State of Mysore (1962)

Issue: Mysore’s 68% quota for BCs, SCs, and STs in medical/engineering colleges.

Ruling: The SC struck down the quota, stating reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) must stay within “reasonable limits”, ideally below 50%. The court warned excessive quotas risk compromising merit and social cohesion.

State of Kerala v/s N.M. Thomas (1976)

Issue: Kerala’s temporary exemption for SC/ST employees from promotion tests.

Ruling: A 7-judge bench upheld the exemption, stressing reservations as tools to achieve substantive equality. Justice Fazl Ali questioned the 50% ceiling, suggesting it could be breached if backward classes form a majority. However, this remained a minority view.

Indra Sawhney v/s Union of India (1992)

Issue: Challenge to the Mandal Commission’s 27% OBC quota, raising total reservations to 49.5%.

Ruling: A 9-judge bench upheld the quota but cemented the 50% ceiling as a constitutional norm.  Exceptions were allowed only in “extraordinary circumstances”, such as remote tribal populations. The court also excluded the “creamy layer” from OBC benefits.

Breaching the 50% Ceiling

Tamil Nadu’s 69% Quota (1994)

Tamil Nadu placed its reservation law under the Ninth Schedule (immune to judicial review) after the Indra Sawhney verdict. However, the 2007 I.R. Coelho v/s State of Tamil Nadu judgment ruled that Ninth Schedule laws can be challenged if they violate the Constitution’s basic structure. Tamil Nadu’s quota remains intact but faces lingering legal uncertainty.

Maharashtra’s Maratha Quota (2021)

The SC struck down a 12–13% Maratha quota, rejecting the state’s claim of “exceptional circumstances”. The court emphasized the 50% limit is “inviolable” unless backed by quantifiable data on backwardness.

103rd Constitutional Amendment (EWS Quota, 2020)

The SC upheld 10% reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in 2022, ruling the 50% cap applies only to SC/ST/OBC quotas, not EWS. This created a new category outside traditional reservation limits.

Legal Challenges

Precedent from Bihar (2023)

The Patna High Court invalidated Bihar’s attempt to increase quotas to 65%, citing the 50% rule. Telangana’s bill could face similar judicial pushback unless it demonstrates “exceptional circumstances” (e.g., extreme backwardness validated by empirical data).

Political v/s Legal Strategy

States often use reservation hikes as populist measures, but courts demand rigorous socio-economic surveys. Telangana’s BC quota increase lacks the Mandal Commission-like data that underpinned OBC reservations nationally.

Conclusion

The 50% ceiling remains a controversial constitutional principle. While exceptions exist (e.g., Tamil Nadu, EWS), courts have consistently curbed politically motivated breaches. For Telangana to succeed, it must provide comprehensive evidence of backwardness and navigate the delicate balance between social justice and judicial precedent.

Must Read Articles:

RESERVATION WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS

RESERVATION SYSTEM

RELIGION AS RESERVATIONS CRITERIA

RESERVATION: REVIEWING 50% CAP

RELIGION-BASED RESERVATION IN INDIA

Source:

INDIANEXPRESS

https://t.me/+hJqMV1O0se03Njk9