© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
In March, the ruling Congress party in Telangana will likely table a Bill to increase reservations for Backward Classes from 25% to 42% in the state. This would increase overall reservations in the state to 62% in local bodies, public employment, and public education. Ahead of the 2023 elections, current Chief Minister Revanth Reddy signed the ‘Kamareddy Declaration’ which promised this increase in reservations.
However, even if the Bill passes it will likely meet the same challenge the Bihar government faced last year when it tried to increase its overall quota. The 50% ceiling for reservations was laid down by the Supreme Court in 1992, and was invoked by the Patna High Court to strike down the law in July 2024.
What is the history behind the 50% ceiling? Has it ever been breached?
Dr Ambedkar’s efforts to strike a balance
During the Constituent Assembly Debate for what would eventually become Article 16 of the Constitution of India, Dr B R Ambedkar discussed the concept of “equality of opportunity” at length. Article 16 allows states to reserve “appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens” who are not adequately represented in public services. While Dr Ambedkar was clearly and staunchly in favour of reservations, he was tasked with achieving a balance that would satisfy those who believed such measures shouldn’t be adopted in the first place.
Dr Ambedkar posed a hypothetical question to the assembly. If 70% of posts were reserved and only 30% were unreserved in public employment, would that satisfy the principle of “equality of opportunity”? He immediately answered his own question, stating “It cannot be, in my judgment”. He then floated an idea: “Therefore the seats to be reserved…must be confined to a minority of seats.”
By stating that reservations should be confined to “a minority of seats”, Dr. Ambedkar effectively laid the groundwork for the 50% ceiling that the Supreme Court would eventually adopt.
Three judgements of the Supreme Court have come to shape the 50% quota as we know it today.
In 1962, the Supreme Court struck down an order by Mysore state reserving 68% of seats in engineering and medical colleges for students from backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). In M R Balaji v. State of Mysore, 23 students had challenged the state order, claiming they would be entitled to admission if not for the order.
In its ruling, the court held that reservations under Articles 15 and 16 must be within “reasonable limits”. It went on to say “Speaking generally and in a broad way, a special provision should be less than 50%”, putting a hard number to the principle first brought up by Dr. Ambedkar. However, the court also clarified, “The actual percentage must depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case”.
In 1976, a seven-judge bench in State of Kerala v. N M Thomas weighed on a challenge to a temporary exemption for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees from the requirement to pass a special departmental test for promotions.
With five judges in the majority, the court upheld the temporary exemption. Justice Fazl Ali held that the exemption was “fully justified” and stated that the only way to achieve the objective of equality in Articles 14 and 16 “is to boost up the backward classes by giving them concessions, relaxations, facilities, removing handicaps and making suitable reservations so that the weaker sections may compete with the more advanced and in due course become equals and backwardness is banished forever”.
The court also questioned the 50% ceiling proposed in M R Balaji. Justice Ali said the 50% ceiling was merely “a rule of caution” and employed his own numbers-based hypothetical to explain when the ceiling could be breached. In a situation where 80% of a state's population comprises citizens from backward classes and the government provides 80% reservation, he asked, “Can it be said that the percentage of reservation is bad and violates the permissible limits of clause (4) of Art. 16?”
He answered, “The answer must necessarily be in the negative”.
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the court heard a challenge to the Centre’s decision to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission by introducing a 27% quota for Socially and Economically Backward Classes.
While upholding the quota, the nine-judge Constitution bench also reiterated the 50% ceiling for SC, ST and Backward Class reservations, though the judges had different ideas on its rigidity.
Justice B P Jeevan Reddy (writing for himself and three others in the majority) held that this ceiling “has not been held to be inflexible or inviolable for all times to come” and that in certain “exceptional circumstances” the ceiling could be breached to ensure representation for the most marginalised communities.
Has the 50% ceiling ever been breached?
Over the years, states have routinely attempted to provide reservations exceeding the 50% ceiling. However, these attempts have repeatedly fallen short after court involvement.
In 2021, the Supreme Court struck down the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 in Maharashtra which provided reservations to the Maratha community which led to a breach of the 50% ceiling. Among other reasons for striking the Act down, Justice Ashok Bhushan held that the 50% ceiling had gained the status of law and none of the material supplied showed any ‘exceptional circumstances’ to justify a breach.
On the other hand, an exception was carved out for the State of Tamil Nadu following the Indira Sawhney Ruling. In 1990, the Tamil Nadu government raised its total reservation quota to 69%. At the insistence of Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha, the Tamil Nadu reservation law was placed under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India in 1993. Laws placed in this schedule cannot be challenged for violating fundamental rights.
