The Revanth Reddy government will have to navigate legal and constitutional hurdles to see these bills through.
Published Sep 04, 2025 | 4:15 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 04, 2025 | 4:15 PM
Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy. Credit: x.com/revanth_anumula
Synopsis: Following the Mandal Commission report, reservations for backward classes have been periodically enhanced. Many states, such as Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, have taken similar steps. The crucial test, however, is whether a state is justified in transgressing the 50 percent ceiling.
Recently, two bills were passed in the Telangana Assembly to increase reservations for backward classes, thereby exceeding the existing 50 percent ceiling imposed by the Supreme Court in the landmark Indra Sawhney case.
One bill relates to education and employment, while the other concerns local bodies.
The major hurdle for these bills to become law is the requirement for presidential assent, following their reservation by the governor.
Presidential assent is needed because the Supreme Court, in the Indra Sawhney case, held that any reservation exceeding 50 percent would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the court also stated that a state could exceed this limit if it could justify the decision with quantifiable data demonstrating backwardness.
In the said case the Supreme Court held – “Reservation being extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action should be confined to minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality, the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50 percent.”
The Supreme Court further added: “Creamy layer amongst backward class of citizens must be excluded by fixation of proper income, property or status criteria.”
Even if the state collects such data, the bills still require presidential assent. The President has the discretion to either grant assent or return the bills for reconsideration, pointing out specific issues.
The state could also initiate a procedure to include these acts in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, which would make them immune from judicial review.
However, in the 2007 IR Coelho case, Supreme Court ruled that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule can be challenged if they are found to be unconstitutional. This means that merely including a legislation in the Ninth Schedule does not grant it total immunity. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“Every amendment to the Constitution whether it be in the form of amendment of any Article or amendment by insertion of an Act in the Ninth Schedule, has to be tested by reference to the doctrine of basic structure which includes reference to Article 21 read with Article 14, Article 15, etc. As stated, laws included in the Ninth Schedule do not become part of the Constitution, they derive their validity on account of the exercise undertaken by the Parliament to include them in the Ninth Schedule. That exercise has to be tested every time it is undertaken. In respect of that exercise, the principle of compatibility will come in. One has to see the effect of the impugned law on one hand and the exclusion of Part III in its entirety at the will of the Parliament.”
Following the Mandal Commission report, reservations for backward classes have been periodically enhanced. Many states, such as Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, have taken similar steps. The crucial test, however, is whether a state is justified in transgressing the 50 percent ceiling.
As society progresses over time, eliminating the “creamy layer” from the beneficiaries of reservation is, to some extent, based on this very aspect. Therefore, the question remains whether the percentage of reservations can be enhanced despite the overall progress of society. The Telangana government will have to navigate these legal and constitutional hurdles to see these bills through.
(Author is a senior advocate. Views are personal)
(Edited by Amit Vasudev)
