Telangana’s Reservation Hike and 50% Ceiling
Context:
In March, the Telangana government is expected to introduce a Bill to increase reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) from 25% to 42%.
More on News
- If passed, this would raise the overall reservation quota in local bodies, public employment, and public education to 62%.
- The move aligns with the Kamareddy Declaration, signed by Chief Minister Revanth Reddy ahead of the 2023 elections, which promised a significant expansion in reservations.
- However, the proposal is likely to face legal hurdles similar to those encountered by the Bihar government in 2024 when it attempted to raise its reservation quota beyond 50%.
- The Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling had established a 50% ceiling on reservations, a precedent that led the Patna High Court to strike down Bihar’s law in July 2024.
Origin of the 50% Ceiling
- The 50% cap on reservations traces its roots to debates in the Constituent Assembly, particularly discussions led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on Article 16 of the Indian Constitution.
- Dr. Ambedkar, a firm advocate of affirmative action, also sought to balance reservations with the principle of equality of opportunity.
- He posed a crucial question during the debates: Would reserving 70% of government jobs still uphold equality of opportunity?
- Answering his own query, he stated, “It cannot be, in my judgment.” Instead, he suggested that reservations should be limited to a minority of seats, a principle that later influenced the Supreme Court’s 50% threshold.
Key Supreme Court Rulings on Reservation Limits
Three landmark judgments have shaped the legal framework around the 50% reservation ceiling:
- M.R. Balaji vs. State of Mysore (1962): In 1962, the Supreme Court struck down a Mysore state order that had reserved 68% of seats in medical and engineering colleges for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
- The court ruled that reservations should remain within “reasonable limits”, suggesting that “speaking generally and in a broad way, a special provision should be less than 50%.”
- However, it also allowed for flexibility, stating that the exact percentage should depend on prevailing circumstances.
- State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas (1976): This case involved a temporary exemption granted to SC and ST employees from a departmental promotion test in Kerala.
- A seven-judge bench upheld the exemption, with Justice Fazl Ali arguing that affirmative action measures, including reservations, were essential for true equality under Articles 14 and 16.
- He also challenged the 50% ceiling imposed in the M.R. Balaji case, calling it a “rule of caution” rather than a rigid limit.
- Using a hypothetical example, Justice Ali questioned whether a state with 80% backward-class population could be denied 80% reservation based on the 50% cap. His answer was a clear “No.”
- Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): The most definitive ruling on the 50% ceiling came in 1992, when the Supreme Court upheld the 27% OBC quota recommended by the Mandal Commission while reiterating the 50% limit.
- However, the judges acknowledged that the ceiling was not absolute.
- Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy noted that in “exceptional circumstances,” the cap could be breached to provide adequate representation for the most marginalized communities.
Has the 50% Ceiling Ever Been Breached?
Several states have attempted to exceed the 50% cap, but most efforts have been struck down by courts:
- Maharashtra: In 2021, the Supreme Court invalidated Maharashtra’s Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018, which granted Marathas a separate reservation quota, pushing the total beyond 50%. The court ruled that no “exceptional circumstances” justified the breach.
- Tamil Nadu: However, Tamil Nadu’s 69% reservation policy remains an exception.
- In 1990, the state increased its reservation quota beyond 50%, and in 1993, under the leadership of Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa, it placed the Tamil Nadu reservation law under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, making it immune from judicial review.
Ninth Schedule
The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution is a list of central and state laws that are protected from judicial review. It was introduced by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, primarily to safeguard laws related to agrarian reform and the abolition of the Zamindari system. The Ninth Schedule shields specific laws from being challenged in courts on the grounds that they violate fundamental rights, as per Article 31B of the Constitution13. Initially, it included 13 laws, and subsequent amendments have increased this number to 284. While laws in the Ninth Schedule are generally immune to judicial review, they can still be challenged if they violate the “basic structure” of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court in the IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu case.
Road Ahead for Telangana
- Telangana’s proposal to raise reservations to 62% will likely face legal challenges, given the Supreme Court’s long-standing precedent.
- Unless the state can establish “exceptional circumstances”, as outlined in the Indra Sawhney ruling, the Bill may struggle to withstand judicial scrutiny.
