Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Telangana government is set to introduce legislation in March 2025 to increase reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) from 25% to 42%, raising the overall quota to 62%. This move aligns with pre-election promises made in the 'Kamareddy Declaration.' However, it faces a legal challenge due to the Supreme Court’s 50% reservation ceiling established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). This ceiling has been consistently upheld in subsequent judicial pronouncements, with few exceptions. The recent experience of Bihar, where a similar attempt to breach the 50% ceiling was struck down by the Patna High Court in July 2024, serves as a cautionary precedent for Telangana. 

Is the 50% Reservation Ceiling Rooted in the Indian Constitution? 

• Constitutional Foundations 
  • The 50% ceiling on reservations, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India, has its roots in the constitutional debates led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution.  
  • During the Constituent Assembly Debates on what would eventually become Article 16 of the Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar engaged in a nuanced discussion about the concept of "equality of opportunity" in public employment. 
  • Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment, while Article 16(4) permits the state to make provisions for reservations in favor of "backward class of citizens" who are inadequately represented in public services.  

How Did Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Shape the Concept of Reservation Limits? 

• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Vision 
  • The challenge for Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was to reconcile these potentially conflicting principles: ensuring social justice through reservations while preserving the essence of equality. 
  • Dr. B.R. Ambedkar posed a hypothetical but crucial question to the assembly: If 70% of posts were reserved and only 30% remained unreserved in public employment, would that arrangement satisfy the principle of "equality of opportunity"? He immediately answered his own question, stating unequivocally, "It cannot be, in my judgment." He then proposed a fundamental guideline: "Therefore the seats to be reserved...must be confined to a minority of seats." 
  • This statement by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is significant because it establishes the conceptual foundation for what would later become the 50% ceiling. By suggesting that reservations should be confined to "a minority of seats," Dr. B.R. Ambedkar implicitly indicated that reservations should not exceed 50% of the total available positions. This principle was intended to strike a balance between the need for social justice through affirmative action and the preservation of merit and equal opportunity for all citizens. 
• Early Implementation and Challenges 
  • In the early years after independence, various states implemented reservation policies with different percentages based on their specific social compositions. These policies often varied widely, with some states exceeding what would later become the 50% threshold.  
  • The absence of a clear constitutional limitation led to inconsistent approaches across the country, necessitating judicial intervention to establish uniform principles. 

How Did Supreme Court Judgments Shape the 50% Ceiling Doctrine? 

The evolution of the 50% ceiling on reservations has been shaped by three landmark Supreme Court judgments, each contributing significantly to the current understanding and application of this principle. 

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

• Background: 
  • This case deals with the quantum of reservations.  
  • The dispute arose when the State of Mysore (now Karnataka) issued an order reserving 68% of seats in engineering and medical colleges for students from backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs). 
  • Twenty-three students, who would have secured admission based on merit if not for these reservations, challenged the order. 
• Court’s Observations: 
  • A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down the Mysore government's order, holding that: 
    • Reservations made under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) must be within "reasonable limits." 
    • "Speaking generally and in a broad way, a special provision should be less than 50%." 
    • The actual percentage of reservations must be determined based on "relevant prevailing circumstances in each case." 
  • The Court emphasized that the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution would be violated if reservations exceeded 50%. 
    • It also acknowledged that this was not an absolute rule and could be adjusted based on the specific conditions prevailing in each state. 

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976): 

• In this case, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of a temporary exemption granted to SC and ST employees from passing a special departmental test required for promotions in the Kerala government service. 
• The Court, with five judges in the majority, upheld the exemption. Justice Fazl Ali, in his judgment, offered a more flexible interpretation of the 50% ceiling proposed in M.R. Balaji. He characterized the 50% limit as merely "a rule of caution" rather than an inflexible constitutional requirement. 
• Justice Ali presented a hypothetical scenario to illustrate this flexibility: If 80% of a state's population comprised citizens from backward classes, and the government provided 80% reservation, would that violate the principle of equality? He answered in the negative, suggesting that in such circumstances, exceeding the 50% limit would be justifiable. 
• The judgment emphasized that the ultimate goal of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 could only be achieved by "boosting up the backward classes by giving them concessions, relaxations, facilities, removing handicaps, and making suitable reservations" so that weaker sections could compete with more advanced sections and eventually achieve equality. 
• This judgment is noteworthy for introducing greater flexibility into the interpretation of the 50% ceiling, suggesting that it could be exceeded in exceptional circumstances where the demographic composition of a state justified such a departure. 

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): 

• This landmark judgment, delivered by a nine-judge Constitution bench, is considered the definitive ruling on reservations in India.  
• The case arose from a challenge to the Central Government's decision to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission by introducing a 27% quota for Socially and Economically Backward Classes in central government jobs. 
• While upholding the 27% quota for OBCs, the Court addressed various aspects of reservation policy, including: 
  • Reiteration of the 50% ceiling on reservations for SC, ST, and Backward Classes combined. 
  • Prohibition of reservations in promotions. 
  • Exclusion of the "creamy layer" among backward classes from the benefits of reservation. 
  • Classification of backward classes based solely on economic criteria. 
• On the specific issue of the 50% ceiling, Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, writing for himself and three other judges in the majority, held that while the 50% ceiling should generally be adhered to, it "has not been held to be inflexible or inviolable for all times to come."  
• He acknowledged that in certain "exceptional circumstances," particularly to ensure representation for the most marginalized communities in remote and isolated areas, the ceiling could be breached. 
• The judgment didn't specify what would constitute "exceptional circumstances," leaving this determination to future judicial interpretation on a case-by-case basis. However, it firmly established that the 50% ceiling was a general rule that should be followed in most circumstances. 
• This judgment is crucial because it solidified the 50% ceiling as a constitutional principle while acknowledging limited flexibility in exceptional cases. It has served as the primary reference point for all subsequent litigation on reservation percentages. 

What Happens When States Attempt to Exceed the 50% Ceiling? 

• Failed Attempts: Maharashtra's Maratha Reservation 
  • The Maharashtra government enacted the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act of 2018, granting 16% reservation to the Maratha community and increasing the state's total reservation quota to 68%. 
  • This legislation represented a deliberate attempt to exceed the 50% ceiling established by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case. 
  • In 2021, the Supreme Court struck down this Act in the case of Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra. 
  • Justice Ashok Bhushan's judgment declared that the 50% ceiling had evolved from a guideline to become part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 
  • The Court ruled that Maharashtra failed to demonstrate any "exceptional circumstances" that would justify breaching the 50% limit. 
  • The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to establish that the Maratha community faced extreme social and educational backwardness warranting special treatment. 
  • This judgment reinforced that only truly extraordinary circumstances could justify any deviation from the 50% principle—a standard that Maharashtra's case failed to meet. 
  • The Court emphasized that the 50% ceiling rule had withstood the test of time and acquired the status of a constitutional principle. 
• Bihar's Recent Experience 
  • The Bihar government attempted to implement reservation policies that exceeded the 50% ceiling established by the Supreme Court. 
  • In July 2024, the Patna High Court invalidated Bihar's expanded reservation policy. 
  • The High Court's reasoning closely paralleled the Supreme Court's approach in the Maratha case. 
  • The Court specifically invoked the 50% ceiling principle from Indra Sawhney as a binding constitutional limitation. 
  • Bihar, like Maharashtra, failed to present evidence of "exceptional circumstances" that would justify breaching the established limit. 
  • This recent decision demonstrates the judiciary's continued commitment to enforcing the 50% ceiling even in contemporary contexts. 
  • The Bihar case holds particular relevance for Telangana's proposed reservation expansion as it involves a similar attempt to exceed the constitutional threshold. 
• The Tamil Nadu Exception 
  • Tamil Nadu stands as the most successful exception to the 50% reservation ceiling, implementing a comprehensive reservation policy of 69% in 1990 (18% for SCs, 1% for STs, and 50% for OBCs). 
  • Rather than attempting to justify the policy under the "exceptional circumstances" doctrine, Tamil Nadu pursued a unique constitutional strategy. 
  • Chief Minister Jayaram Jayalalitha successfully lobbied the central government to place Tamil Nadu's reservation law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution through the 76th Constitutional Amendment in 1993. 
  • The Ninth Schedule, introduced by the First Amendment in 1951, provides special protection to listed legislation, shielding them from challenges based on violations of fundamental rights. 
  • This constitutional mechanism has enabled Tamil Nadu to maintain its 69% reservation policy for decades despite clearly exceeding the 50% ceiling. 
  • The Supreme Court's judgment in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) established that even laws in the Ninth Schedule remain subject to judicial review if they potentially violate the Constitution's basic structure. 
  • While Tamil Nadu's policy has withstood challenges thus far, its continued implementation depends on courts not finding it violative of the basic structure doctrine. 
  • Tamil Nadu's approach demonstrates a legislative pathway for exceeding the 50% ceiling, though one that requires significant political capital and remains vulnerable to constitutional challenge. 

Conclusion 

Telangana’s proposed reservation expansion faces significant legal hurdles due to the Supreme Court’s 50% ceiling. Past judicial rulings suggest that breaching this limit requires exceptional justification, which has rarely succeeded. While Tamil Nadu’s Ninth Schedule strategy offers a potential route, it remains legally vulnerable. Telangana must carefully navigate these challenges, possibly through empirical data collection or sub-categorization, to align its policy with constitutional principles.