Introduction:
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India on October 6, 2025, refused to entertain a petition challenging the Telangana government’s decision to raise Backward Class (BC) reservations in local bodies to 42%. This move pushed the overall reservation in local governance institutions to 67%, far beyond the 50% ceiling laid down by the Court in previous landmark rulings.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta declined to hear the matter directly under Article 32 of the Constitution, instead granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Telangana High Court for appropriate relief.
The order reaffirms the Court’s consistent stance — that the proper forum for first recourse is the jurisdictional High Court, and that Article 32 cannot be invoked as an alternative route when such remedies exist.
The Background: Telangana Raises Quota for Backward Classes to 42%
The controversy stems from the Telangana government’s Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 09) dated September 26, 2025, which increased the BC quota in local bodies—including municipalities and panchayats—from 34% to 42%.
The change pushed the total reservation tally in local bodies to 67%, once existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (15%) and Scheduled Tribes (10%) were factored in.
This decision immediately triggered legal scrutiny, as it appeared to contravene the 50% cap on total reservations established in the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment — a foundational precedent in India’s affirmative action jurisprudence.
The Petitioner’s Case: Breach of the 50% Constitutional Ceiling
The petitioner, Vanga Gopal Reddy, an agriculturist, moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the Telangana government’s G.O. as unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 243D, and 243T.
The petition, filed through Advocate Somiran Sharma, argued that:
- The G.O. breached the 50% ceiling on reservations laid down by the Supreme Court.
- Section 285A of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 explicitly prohibits exceeding this limit, rendering the order ultra vires the statute.
- The order relied on a one-man commission report, which was neither placed before the legislature nor made public, contrary to the procedural mandate of K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010).
- Similar attempts by Maharashtra, Bihar, and Rajasthan to cross the reservation ceiling had been struck down by courts, reaffirming that the cap has binding force under Article 141.
The plea thus contended that the Telangana government’s move was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the rule of law.
Bench’s Response: “Why Approach Us Under Article 32?”
During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned the petitioner’s decision to bypass the High Court and directly invoke Article 32 jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
When the petitioner’s counsel argued that the Telangana High Court had already refused to grant a stay on the matter, Justice Mehta responded sharply:
“The High Court doesn’t grant a stay — that means you come here in (Article) 32? Is this the way to exercise writ jurisdiction?”
The Bench emphasized that dissatisfaction with interim orders or case listings in the High Court cannot justify a direct Article 32 petition before the Supreme Court.
Realizing the Court’s inclination to dismiss the petition, the counsel sought permission to withdraw the plea — which the Court allowed.
The order stated:
“Counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions, states that he may be allowed to withdraw the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court for appropriate reliefs. The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.”
Legal Principles: Article 32 vs. Article 226 and Judicial Hierarchy
This case underscores a fundamental procedural doctrine in Indian constitutional law: Article 32 is not a substitute for Article 226.
While Article 32 gives citizens the right to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights, the Court has consistently held that it should not be invoked when:
- An effective alternative remedy exists (in this case, the High Court), and
- No exceptional or grave constitutional question arises.
This principle ensures judicial discipline, prevents the Supreme Court’s docket from being overburdened, and respects the hierarchical balance between the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Precedents and Constitutional Context
The petitioner’s plea relied heavily on the Indra Sawhney (1992) judgment, which established the 50% ceiling on reservations as a constitutional principle. However, later judgments have clarified that this limit can only be breached under extraordinary circumstances with quantifiable data justifying the extension.
Relevant cases include:
- K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010) — Held that political reservations in local bodies must be justified by empirical data and periodic review.
- Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2021) — Reaffirmed the 50% cap and struck down Maharashtra’s attempt to exceed it in local bodies.
- State of Bihar v. Dr. Nitish Kumar (2022) — Emphasized that exceeding the ceiling violates both Articles 14 and 243D.
Given this consistent jurisprudence, the Telangana government’s G.O. appears legally vulnerable if challenged substantively before the High Court.
What Lies Ahead: Telangana High Court to Hear the Challenge
The Supreme Court’s order does not end the dispute. By granting liberty to approach the Telangana High Court, the Court has effectively redirected the case to the appropriate constitutional forum.
The High Court will now examine key questions such as:
- Whether the 42% BC quota is backed by empirical data demonstrating inadequate representation.
- Whether the State’s decision violates Section 285A of the Panchayat Raj Act.
- Whether the 50% ceiling applies rigidly to local body reservations or allows flexibility based on state-specific contexts.
The outcome could have wide-ranging implications, not just for Telangana but also for *other states contemplating similar increases in local body reservations.
Broader Implications: Reservation, Representation, and Rule of Law
The Telangana case reflects the ongoing tension between social justice and constitutional limits. While affirmative action aims to ensure representation for marginalized groups, unchecked expansion of quotas risks undermining equality principles under Article 14.
Courts have repeatedly cautioned that reservations are a means, not an end — a temporary corrective mechanism, not a perpetual entitlement.
At the same time, states argue that ground realities demand flexibility, especially in local governance where Backward Classes form a significant population segment.
The debate thus continues: Should the 50% ceiling remain absolute, or evolve with India’s changing socio-economic landscape?
Conclusion: A Lesson in Constitutional Procedure
By refusing to entertain the plea under Article 32, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a cornerstone of judicial practice — that constitutional remedies must flow through the proper forum. The decision also reinforced the binding nature of the 50% reservation ceiling, even as states seek to expand affirmative action policies.
As the matter now moves to the Telangana High Court, the upcoming proceedings will likely test how far states can go in redefining representation without breaching constitutional equality.
In essence, this case is not just about numbers — it’s about constitutional discipline, procedural propriety, and the enduring balance between equality and empowerment in Indian democracy.
Also Read
UPSC Civil Services Exams | Supreme Court Told About Provisional Answer Keys Decision
