The Fight to Remove India’s 50% Reservation Cap: A Case for Telangana’s BCs

India’s affirmative action framework, a cornerstone of its constitutional commitment to social justice, is facing a pivotal test in Telangana. The state’s push for 42% reservations for Backward Classes (BCs) in local bodies, education, and employment—combined with 15% for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and 10% for Scheduled Tribes (STs)—would exceed the Supreme Court’s 50% cap on quotas, a judicial limit set in 1992. This cap, rooted in the Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India ruling, has long constrained states’ ability to address entrenched inequalities. Telangana’s battle to secure its 67% quota, backed by a 2024–25 caste census showing BCs comprise 56.36% of the population, offers a compelling case to challenge this ceiling. The merits of removing the 50% cap are both pragmatic and principled, promising a fairer representation for India’s marginalised majority while testing the judiciary’s willingness to adapt to evolving demographic realities.

A Legal and Political Flashpoint

Telangana’s journey began with ambition but hit a familiar roadblock. In March 2025, the state assembly unanimously passed bills to implement 42% BC reservations, which were sent to the President in April. A Government Order (GO Ms No. 9) followed in September to enforce the quota for local elections. Yet, on October 9, 2025, the Telangana High Court issued an interim stay, citing potential violations of the 50% cap and procedural lapses, such as unpublished caste census data and lack of gubernatorial assent. This echoes a 2018 setback when a 34% BC quota was struck down for breaching the same limit. The state now faces a dual challenge: defending the quota in court and seeking its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, which shields laws from judicial review, as Tamil Nadu has done since 1994 with its 69% quota.

The 50% cap, established in Indra Sawhney for public employment under Article 16, was extended to other reservations, including local bodies, in Krishnamurthy vs. Union of India (2010). It aims to balance affirmative action with equality under Article 14, ensuring merit-based access for unreserved categories. However, Telangana’s advocates argue that this cap, never explicitly mandated by the Constitution, is outdated and ill-suited to states with large backward populations. BC organisations, such as the BC Intellectual Forum, and Bahujan-centric parties are rallying to challenge it, invoking Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s maxim that reservations are a “right to representation,” not charity.

Merits of Removing the 50% Cap

1. Reflecting Demographic Realities

Telangana’s caste census reveals that BCs, SCs, and STs together constitute over 80% of the population. Yet, in past local elections, BCs held only 13 of 31 Zilla Parishad chairs, a stark underrepresentation for a 56.36% demographic. The 50% cap forces states to prioritise SC/ST quotas (tied to population proportions under Articles 243D and 243T) while limiting BC reservations, often to as low as 23%, as in 2018. Removing the cap would allow quotas to mirror demographic weight, ensuring proportional representation in governance, education, and jobs. Tamil Nadu’s 69% quota, upheld for 31 years, demonstrates that higher reservations can function without destabilising social equity.

2. Empowering State Autonomy
Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) grant states discretion to set BC reservations in local bodies, a flexibility curtailed by the 50% cap. States like Telangana, with unique caste compositions, argue that a one-size-fits-all limit undermines federalism. The Supreme Court’s Janahit vs. Union of India (2022) ruling, which upheld 10% EWS quotas beyond the 50% ceiling, signals judicial openness to exceptions based on “quantifiable data.” Telangana’s caste census and BC Commission’s March 2025 report provide such evidence, documenting BCs’ socio-economic and political exclusion. A successful challenge could restore states’ authority to tailor affirmative action to local needs.

3. Advancing Social Justice
The 50% cap perpetuates inequalities by capping opportunities for backward groups in states with high marginalised populations. In Telangana, BCs face systemic barriers—lower literacy rates, higher poverty, and limited political clout. A 42% quota would unlock access to education, jobs, and elected offices, fostering upward mobility. Critics argue that exceeding 50% risks entrenching caste divisions or sidelining merit. Yet, as Janahit affirmed, reservations aligned with social justice do not violate the Constitution’s basic structure. Tamil Nadu’s experience shows that high quotas can coexist with development, with no significant backlash from unreserved groups.

4. Setting a National Precedent
Telangana’s fight could reshape India’s affirmative action landscape. States like Bihar, which saw its 65% quota struck down in 2023 for breaching the 50% cap, and Odisha, exploring similar reforms, are watching closely. A Supreme Court ruling relaxing the cap—potentially through a larger bench revisiting Indra Sawhney—would empower other states to address local inequalities. It would also align with the national caste census movement, championed by leaders like Rahul Gandhi, who advocate “Jitni Aabadi, Utna Haq” (rights proportional to population).

The Legal Strategy

Challenging the 50% cap requires a multi-pronged legal offensive:

1. Writ Petition in the Supreme Court: File under Article 32 (fundamental rights) or Article 131 (Centre-state disputes), seeking a review of Indra Sawhney and Krishnamurthy. Argue that the cap, a judicial guideline, not a constitutional mandate, does not apply to local body reservations under Articles 243D and 243T. Request referral to a larger bench (7–11 judges) to reassess its relevance in light of modern demographics.
2. Empirical Evidence: Present Telangana’s caste census and BC Commission data, showing 56.36% BC population and underrepresentation (e.g., 13/31 ZP chairs). Independent audits of socio-economic indicators—poverty, education, political exclusion—will meet the Krishnamurthy requirement for “quantifiable data” to justify exceeding 50%.
3. Precedents and Exceptions: Cite Janahit (2022) for judicial flexibility and Tamil Nadu’s 69% quota, protected by the Ninth Schedule since 1994. Reference I.R. Coelho (2007), which allows Ninth Schedule laws unless they violate the Constitution’s basic structure, to argue that a 67% quota upholds equality.
4. Interim Relief: Seek Supreme Court permission to implement the 42% quota pending the cap’s review, citing public interest and the risk of electoral delays (local polls due in November 2025).
5. Amicus Curiae and PILs: Request an amicus curiae to evaluate the cap’s contemporary relevance. BC groups should file public interest litigations to highlight the broader social justice stakes.

Political and Social Mobilisation

Legal battles alone won’t suffice. BC organisations and Bahujan-centric parties must galvanise public support. A “BC Unity Forum,” uniting Congress, BRS, AIMIM, and BJP’s BC leaders, should pass a resolution demanding Ninth Schedule inclusion and a cap review. Statewide rallies in Hyderabad and Warangal, echoing Ambedkar’s call for representation, can amplify pressure. National lobbying—engaging Prime Minister Modi, Rahul Gandhi, and opposition leaders—must push for a parliamentary debate in the 2026 Budget Session. Social media campaigns, led by BC youth and students, should counter upper-caste opposition, framing the quota as a constitutional right, not a concession.

Risks and Counterarguments

Opponents of removing the 50% cap warn of social fragmentation or reduced opportunities for unreserved groups. The Supreme Court’s Vikas Kishan Rao Gawali (2021) ruling, which struck down Maharashtra’s excess quotas, underscores judicial caution. Yet, robust data and Ninth Schedule protection can mitigate these risks. Upper-caste backlash is another concern, but bipartisan support in Telangana—from BRS to AIMIM—offers a buffer. Delays in local polls due to the High Court stay are likely, but these can be leveraged to expedite central and judicial action.

A Moment of Reckoning

Telangana’s fight is more than a regional cause; it is a litmus test for India’s commitment to social justice. The 50% cap, a relic of 1992, no longer serves a nation where backward classes form the majority in many states. Removing it would honour Ambedkar’s vision, empower states to address local inequities, and set a precedent for inclusive governance. As Deputy CM Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka declared, “We’ll fight politically and legally to protect the BC quota.” With empirical data, legal acumen, and unified resolve, Telangana can lead India toward a fairer future—one where representation matches reality.