A Critical Look at TG's Proposal for 42% BC Quota, 50% Cap on Reservations

The Telangana State Council of Ministers is slated to meet on March 6, with a crucial agenda item regarding the proposed 42% reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) in the state.

- K RAMKRISHNA REDDI Former Advocate General, Telangana

The government is reportedly contemplating a resolution – if not a bill – in the State Legislative Assembly, urging the union government to provide Constitutional protection for this proposal under the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The government's belief is that this provision would shield their proposed reservation increase from judicial scrutiny. However, a thorough examination of past judicial precedents paints a different picture.

The Constitutional and judicial limits of reservations The Telangana government appears to base its argument on Article 243D(6) and T (6) of the Constitution, which allows state legislatures to make provisions for reservation of seats in local bodies for backward classes. While this provision is an enabling clause, it does not offer a carte blanche to exceed the 50% cap on reservations that has been established through judicial pronouncements over the years.

A recent Constitutional Bench judgment that set the tone for the 50% cap is K Krishna Murthy & Ors v. Union of India (2010). In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the upper limit for reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) should not exceed 50%. This was particularly important in the context of local self-government.

Moreover, a division bench presided by Justice P. Ghose (who is now heading a Commission that is probing the irregularities in Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme), the then-Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in 2012, reaffirmed this limit in the context of local body elections, ruling that reservations should not exceed 50%, as set out in earlier decisions like Indra Sawhney (1992).