42% Reservations for BCs in Local Bodies, Education, and Employment - Possibilities and Challenges

T. Chiranjeevulu, IAS (Retired). Chairman, BC Intellectual Forum

"Reservation is not a pension; it is a right to representation."
— Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

The Telangana state government’s recent proposal to amend Section 285A of the Panchayat Raj Act to provide 42% reservation for BCs in local bodies through an ordinance may seem like a politically boastful announcement. However, the history, legal limitations, court judgments, and past experiences related to this issue need to be carefully examined by BC communities and democratic advocates.

History of Section 285A – How a Temporary Decision Became a Permanent Law
In 2018, when the new Panchayat Raj Act was introduced, Section 285A did not exist. Through GO No. 396 issued that year, the government decided to provide 34% reservation for BCs. However, following a High Court review, this GO was struck down because it violated the Supreme Court’s ruling (Krishnamurthy Case, 2010) that total reservations should not exceed the 50% ceiling.

The government appealed to the Supreme Court but later withdrew the appeal as per the court’s directives. In those circumstances, Ordinance 2/2018 was issued to conduct elections with 23% BC reservation, but it had a validity of only six months. To make it permanent, Section 285A was added to the Panchayat Raj Act through Act No. 4/2019.

Now, the government plans to remove this section and implement 42% BC reservation through a new GO. However, while this may be technically feasible, past experiences and legal experts’ opinions indicate that it is unlikely to hold up legally.

Legal Limitation – The 50% Ceiling

The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments in 1992 granted constitutional status to Panchayat Raj and Municipal bodies. Articles 243D and 243T were introduced, providing statutory reservations for SCs, STs, and BCs. Reservations for SCs and STs were mandated under Articles 243D(1) and 243T(1) based on population proportion, while for BCs, Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) allowed states to provide reservations at their discretion. Consequently, the Supreme Court imposed a 50% ceiling on total reservations in 2010.

The Supreme Court’s rulings are clear: total reservations (SC, ST, and BC combined) must not exceed 50%. After allocating population-based reservations for SCs and STs, the remaining percentage within the 50% limit can be allocated to BCs. This is considered a key component of the right to equality under the Indian Constitution.

Key Judgments:

• Krishnamurthy vs. Union of India (2010)
• Maharashtra OBC Reservation Case (2021) (Vikas Kishan Rao Gawali)
• Various High Court judgments in Andhra Pradesh/Telangana

These judgments reiterate the same point. Some argue that forming a dedicated commission, conducting a caste census, and collecting empirical data on BCs’ political backwardness would ensure that courts accept increased reservations, making a GO sufficient. However, the Bihar experience serves as a reminder. In 2023, the Nitish Kumar government conducted a caste census, published population data by caste, and increased reservations to 65%. Yet, the High Court struck down the GO, citing the violation of the 50% ceiling. Repeating the same effort here would be futile.

Political Maneuvering through Ordinances/Gos

This is not the first time. During every local body election, the state government issues temporary ordinances or GOs, which are later struck down in court. These are used to create an impression among the public that efforts are being made for BC rights, serving as a tool for vote-bank politics.
"Repeating a strategy that fails in court every time is nothing but deceiving the public.

"42% GO – A Legal Dead End

Even if Section 285A is amended to provide 42% BC reservation, it will merely facilitate the issuance of a GO. However, it is highly likely to be struck down during judicial review, as history has shown in 2018

For true legal protection, a law must be enacted and included in the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The Telangana government has already sent bills to the central government, with the Governor’s approval, to increase BC reservations to 42% in education, employment, and local bodies. The Chief Minister must now lead an all-party delegation to Delhi, meet the Prime Minister, and ensure these bills are passed in the Parliament session starting July 21, 2025. With the President’s approval, including these bills in the Ninth Schedule would provide a permanent solution.

The Real Solution – Ninth Schedule
Tamil Nadu serves as an example. Since 1994, it has implemented 69% reservations in education, employment, and local bodies by including the law in the Ninth Schedule, benefiting from it for the past 31 years.

Telangana must follow the same path. A law must be debated in Parliament, enacted with the President’s approval, and included in the Ninth Schedule. This would provide a permanent solution not only for the Panchayat Raj Act but also for reservations in education and employment.

The Supreme Court, in the I.R. Coelho Case (2007), stated that it has the authority to review laws included in the Ninth Schedule if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution, as established in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973). However, in the Janahit vs. Union of India case (2022) regarding EWS reservations, the Supreme Court held that reservations do not violate the Constitution’s basic structure. Tamil Nadu has successfully provided 50% BC reservations since 1994 under the Ninth Schedule, and none of the 284 laws included in it have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Thus, inclusion in the Ninth Schedule is the only legal safeguard.

The state government plans to issue a GO and immediately release election notifications, believing courts will not intervene once notifications are issued. However, this is not true. In Maharashtra, the Supreme Court, in the Vikas Kishan Rao Gawali Case (2021), struck down notifications and elections in five districts for exceeding the 50% ceiling and ordered re-elections without BC reservations due to the absence of a dedicated commission’s report. This precedent shows their argument is flawed.

Warning to BC Communities
In this context, BC communities must not be deceived again. Do not place hopes on temporary GOs or ordinances. They must recognize attempts to exploit BC rights for political gains. The fight for BC rights and lawful reservations should not rely on illusions but must be waged within the constitutional framework