T. Chiranjeevulu, retired IAS officer and Chairman of the BC Intellectuals Forum, Hyderabad.
Today let's discuss whether 42% reservations for BCs in local bodies, in education, and in jobs are possible in Telangana, and what we need to do to make them possible.
Parliament sessions began just yesterday. In these sessions, it has been reported in today's newspapers that the central government will bring bills on Women's Reservation and on Delimitation. That's good news — but for the last 15 months, the 42% reservation bills sent by the Telangana state government have been pending with the Centre. The bills that reached the central government in April 2025 still have no progress. Whatever queries the Centre has raised, the state government has responded to all of them. Even so, the central government is not paying attention to these bills.
Similarly, when it comes to social justice, Rahul Gandhi — who claims he will break the 50% reservation ceiling — has not mentioned this issue even for a single minute in Parliament over the last 15 months. The main point here is that no political party has real sincerity about giving BCs 42% reservation. Knowing full well that it would be struck down in courts, the Congress government issued a GO granting 42% reservation in local bodies, and after courts stayed that GO, they are now misleading the people by saying "there's nothing more we can do."
Recently, you all saw the Metro Rail issue — how the Chief Minister here put pressure on the Centre, and how the Union Minister Kishan Reddy and the Chief Minister together held talks with the Centre on the Metro Rail. Why isn't that same sincerity shown regarding the 42% BC reservation issue? That is what BC people are questioning today.
Now let's briefly discuss whether these reservations are legally possible — what the laws say, what court judgments say. Today many people believe that the 50% ceiling set by courts is a "Lakshman Rekha" that cannot be crossed. But that is not true — the solution actually lies within the very judgment that set that ceiling. Let's discuss that now.
Constitutional Basis of Reservations
The foundation for reservations is the Indian Constitution. Reservations were introduced with the intention of providing social justice, equal opportunity, and correcting historical injustices done to SCs, STs, and BCs who have suffered for thousands of years in this country.
In the Indian Constitution, Article 16(4) originally stated that adequate reservations should be provided if backward classes lack sufficient representation. Initially, there was no reservation in education. When the Supreme Court, in the Champakam Dorairajan case (Tamil Nadu), ruled that reservations in education were invalid, it led to agitation in Tamil Nadu (influenced by Periyar), resulting in the First Constitutional Amendment in 1951. Article 15(4) was added, providing reservations in education for backward classes.
Now a question arises: Article 14 says everyone is equal before the law and the law provides equal protection to all. Article 15 says the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16 says there shall be equality of opportunity for all in matters of public employment. Yet Articles 15(4) and 16(4) also enshrine, as fundamental rights, that reservations shall be provided. So when we talk about equal opportunity on one hand and reservations on the other, many people get confused about how to reconcile the two.
On this very point, Dr. Ambedkar said in the Constituent Assembly that even after achieving political equality, if we fail to achieve economic and social equality, this country will fall into trouble. Recently, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud remarked in a TV interview that it is because of reservations that social equilibrium has been maintained in this country.
In fact, reservations are not opposed to equality — for equality to be truly achieved in this country, oppressed sections definitely need certain special protections. Most constitutions in the world follow "substantive equality" rather than mere "formal equality," and the Indian Constitution too gives priority to substantive equality over formal equality.
Those who argue that "merit" suffers should remember one thing: merit does not simply mean scoring a few more marks. Here, merit also means how a system balances all sections of society to achieve equality. Many constitutional experts and courts have held that expecting children from poor families with nothing, competing equally with those from elite convent-educated backgrounds, would only perpetuate this inequality — hence these constitutional protections were given.
Today, reservations exist for Blacks in America, in South Africa, and in Malaysia too. Reservations exist in many countries worldwide. But the key difference here is that in this country, the majority of the population belongs to oppressed sections — so the majority gets reservations. In America, Blacks are a minority; in many countries, minorities are given reservations.
Constitutional Articles Related to Reservations
Let's look at which articles of the Constitution provide these reservations:
- Article 15(4) — Added by the First Constitutional Amendment, providing reservations in educational matters.
- Article 15(5) — Added by the 93rd Amendment, providing reservation for SC, ST, and OBCs in government and private educational institutions (this does not apply to minority educational institutions).
- Article 15(6) — Provides up to 10% reservation in educational institutions for EWS.
- Article 16(4) — Uses the term "backward classes"; Article 15(4) uses "socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs." So Article 16(4) allows reservation, in adequate measure, for backward classes lacking sufficient representation — without specifying exactly how much. The word used is "adequate," and courts have repeatedly noted that "backward classes" here includes OBCs, SCs, and STs together.
- Article 16(4A) and 16(4B) — Provide for reservation in promotions for SC/ST and carry-forward of vacancies.
- Article 334 — Reservations in legislatures, originally meant for just 10 years, but extended repeatedly through constitutional amendments every 10 years.
- Article 335 — States that while considering SC/ST claims to reservation, administrative efficiency in government services should also be maintained.
- Articles 243D and 243T (via the 73rd/74th Amendments) — Provide reservation for SC/ST in Panchayats and Municipalities according to their population proportion; OBCs get reservation subject to the 50% ceiling — i.e., whatever remains after SC/ST get their proportional share. As you know, in the recent Gram Panchayat elections in Telangana, BCs did not get more than 18% reservation.
The Indian Constitution also envisions a welfare state. While equality is a fundamental right in the Constitution, social justice runs through it like its soul. To establish a welfare state, several articles were included:
- Article 38 — The State shall strive to promote a social order based on social, economic, and political justice.
- Article 39(b)(c) — Wealth should not be concentrated in a few hands; resources should serve the common good.
- Article 46 — The State shall promote the educational and economic interests of socially and educationally backward sections.
These Directive Principles provide the moral and constitutional foundation for reservations.
Why Are Reservations Still Necessary?
Some argue: it's been nearly 80 years since independence, India is now the world's fourth-largest economy — are reservations still needed? The main goals of reservations are: increasing representation in education and jobs, providing adequate opportunities, ensuring participation of all sections in governance, achieving social justice, reducing the impact of historical discrimination, and making democracy more inclusive. Reservations are meant to address the structural backwardness of socially backward communities, not individual poverty.
Some argue reservations were meant to last only 10 years — that's not true. Only the reservation for SC/ST in legislatures was given a 10-year limit, which we keep extending through constitutional amendments every 10 years. Reservations under Articles 15 and 16 for education and jobs have no time limit — they will continue as long as discrimination exists in society.
The 50% Ceiling
However, courts have repeatedly held that reservations should not exceed 50% — this has become a judicial principle followed by all courts today. How did this 50% ceiling originate? Initially, in the State of Mysore (Karnataka), when the government issued orders providing 68% reservation in medical and engineering colleges, the case of Balaji vs. State of Mysore came up, and then Chief Justice Gajendragadkar suggested that reservations should not exceed the 50% ceiling. That suggestion later became a guiding principle.
However, later Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy, in State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas (1976), argued that fixing a numerical limit of 50% on reservations was not correct, stating that reservations exist to achieve substantive justice, and that rigid numerical limits were not appropriate for removing historical inequalities. Justice Chinnappa Reddy expressed a similar view in Vasanth Kumar vs. State of Karnataka.
Nevertheless, in 1992, while reviewing the Mandal Commission report, the Supreme Court (in the Indra Sawhney case) held that the 50% ceiling could be exceeded in "exceptional circumstances" / "extraordinary circumstances" — this majority opinion, written by Justice Jeevan Reddy, appears in paragraphs 810 of that judgment.
In Tamil Nadu, back in 1980, M.G. Ramachandran had already provided 68% reservation in education and jobs; in 1989, Karunanidhi increased it to 69%. After the Indra Sawhney judgment, there was pressure to reduce Tamil Nadu's 69% down to 50%. In that situation, the Tamil Nadu government passed a special law in 1994 and sent it to the Centre. The then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao got the law passed through Parliament, got Presidential assent, and through the 76th Constitutional Amendment had it included in the Ninth Schedule. To this day, Tamil Nadu enjoys 69% reservation. After the Indra Sawhney judgment, many states that issued GOs exceeding 50% found them struck down by courts. Today, the judicially accepted principle is that reservations should not exceed 50%.
Telangana's Situation
Recently, after Telangana conducted its Caste Survey (Samagra Kutumba Survey / "CEPEC" survey), the state government's GO providing 42% reservation in local bodies was stayed by the High Court. In fact, the state government did not place the caste census data before the court. Second, we haven't obtained Ninth Schedule protection. Even if something is placed in the Ninth Schedule, the Supreme Court, in the Coelho case (2007), held that it would review such inclusions — but what they actually said was that they would review inclusions in the Ninth Schedule only if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
EWS reservations were established through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. In Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court, while upholding EWS reservations, declared that the 50% ceiling is not part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
So, if Telangana grants 42% reservation today, combined with the existing 25% for SC/ST, the total would reach 67%. This 67% exceeds the 50% ceiling — but based on this judgment, there is no basis to say it would definitely be struck down. However, that is not a generally accepted principle either; in many instances, courts have said that clear, quantifiable, contemporaneous empirical data is required to justify exceeding the 50% ceiling.
Telangana's caste survey found that BCs make up 56.33% [likely mis-stated in original as 33%] of the population, SCs above 18%, STs above 10%, and OCs only 15.65% — and of that, about 8 lakh people did not disclose their caste. Excluding them, OCs come to no more than 12.35%. This means 88% of the state's population is SC, ST, or BC — so extraordinary circumstances clearly exist in this state. If this is properly presented and argued as a special case of extraordinary circumstances, courts would very likely accept it — but the state government lacks the sincerity to do so, and the central government lacks the sincerity to place it in the Ninth Schedule.
Some say even Ninth Schedule inclusion could be struck down — but so far, 284 laws have been placed in the Ninth Schedule, and not a single one has been struck down by the Supreme Court. Also, as noted, the 50% ceiling is not part of the basic structure — the Indra Sawhney judgment itself, in paragraphs 810, held that reservations can exceed 50% in extraordinary circumstances.
Today many states already exceed 50%: Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Meghalaya, and Manipur give up to 80% reservation to STs. In Sikkim, SCs get 7%, STs 38%, OBCs 40%, and with EWS's 10%, it totals around 90-95%. Tamil Nadu, as mentioned, has 69%. With EWS reservation now at 10%, the whole idea of a strict 50% ceiling has effectively lost meaning.
Why 42%?
Some ask why 42% specifically. The Constitution does not use the term "proportionate reservation." In Telangana, BCs are 56.33% of the population — proportionate reservation would mean giving them that full share, but we are not asking for proportionate reservation. The Constitution uses the word "adequate" — adequate reservation doesn't mean throwing a token amount; it should be reasonably close to our population share. That's why 42% is a just and reasonable demand.
Some parties claim Muslims are included in this — Muslims have been part of the BC category from the very beginning. In 2007, the then Chief Minister of Telangana included 15 Muslim castes/groups under the BC-E category, giving them 4% reservation. That reservation was struck down by the High Court here in 2010. The state government then approached the Supreme Court, which, without commenting on the High Court's order, allowed the 4% reservation to continue temporarily. So the 4% given to them within the current 42% continues only under the Supreme Court's interim order — nothing more. There's no scope to give them more than 4%.
Some say the bills weren't sent in the proper format — but whatever errors the central government pointed out, the state has corrected all of them and resent the bills. Since then, there have been no further queries and no action either. We must understand this attitude of the governments.
Ambedkar's Actual Position
Some argue that Ambedkar said in the Constituent Assembly that reservations should not exceed 30%. That is not true. He spoke about balancing reservations and equality — maintaining administrative efficiency while keeping reservations within some limit. He never meant to separate the two entirely. Today, there is no threat to administrative efficiency, because back then, few among SC/ST/BC were educated, which is why the phrase "efficiency in administration" was used. Today, everyone across these communities is highly educated — there's no question of efficiency being affected.
In fact, Tamil Nadu has enjoyed 68% reservation since 1980, and 69% since 1989 — barring about one and a half years of disruption after the Indra Sawhney judgment. Today, Tamil Nadu is ahead of many other states in the country, and merit hasn't suffered there at all. Merit depends on many factors — educational standards, human resources, and infrastructure in a given state — efficiency depends on all these things.
Some claim that exceeding 50% reservation would create chaos in the country. That's not true — Tamil Nadu, with 69% reservation, is a model for the nation today. That is something worth remembering.
A Call to Action
All political parties in this state are using the 42% reservation issue as a vote bank while doing serious injustice to BCs on this matter. Dominant-caste-led parties have quietly given themselves up to 10% reservation through EWS and are implementing that 10% without even asking. But when it comes to BCs, their rightfully due reservation is being blocked in courts and through various other means.
These reservations bring social justice to this country while also helping maintain peace and steady development — rather than becoming a threat to peace, as some claim. Telangana is a special state that has seen many movements, and if justice is denied to the majority population here, it will lead to serious unrest.
BC and Bahujan people of Telangana must remember one thing: we have carried out many movements in the past, and the ultimate benefits of those movements ended up going to the dominant castes again. The movement happening today is for the Bahujans, for the BCs — and BC youth, people, and leaders must participate in large numbers.
Just as people in Tamil Nadu put pressure on their political leaders and achieved their goal, the same kind of pressure needs to be built in Telangana today. BC students, youth, and leaders — we need to pressure our political leaders to raise this reservation issue during the current Parliament session. If we don't apply that pressure, the central government will not act. Even though we have every constitutional and legal opportunity, if we are unable to seize it, the reason is that there hasn't been sufficient pressure from us on political parties. That is why, during this Parliament session, we must increase pressure on political parties to secure 42% reservation.
Jai Phule, Jai Ambedkar.
Comments
Post a Comment