 |
|
The Indian Constitution, built upon the cornerstones of justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity, employs reservations as a pivotal instrument to rectify historical injustices and empower socially and educationally backward classes. This mechanism has been instrumental for decades in providing opportunities to communities historically denied access to education, employment, and political representation due to ingrained caste hierarchies. While the Constitution aspires to an inclusive and equitable order, the promise of social justice remains partially fulfilled, particularly for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Legal ambiguities, judicial constraints, and policy hesitations have consistently limited the scope and implementation of reservations for OBCs. This is most evident in local governance, where, despite clear constitutional provisions, OBCs remain underrepresented. The decision of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to enact laws providing 42% reservations for Backward Classes in education, employment, and local bodies is a bold and progressive intervention. The state has rightly called upon the Union government to include these laws in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, similar to the Tamil Nadu reservation model, to shield them from judicial review. This demand is not only legally sound but also morally and politically essential to preserve the constitutional values of justice and equality. The 50% cap on reservations, often invoked to strike down affirmative action policies, is not a constitutional mandate but a judicial invention. In M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962), the Supreme Court suggested that reservations be kept within “reasonable limits,” implying a ceiling of 50%. This idea was reinforced in the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case, where a nine-judge bench ruled that total reservations should not exceed 50%, even as it upheld 27% reservations for OBCs in central services. This cap is not mentioned in the Constitution; it is a judicially crafted doctrine with no empirical basis. Over the years, it has functioned as a barrier to the effective implementation of social justice policies, particularly in states where the population of marginalised groups exceeds 50%. It is especially problematic in the context of local bodies, where ground realities demand flexible and proportional representation. The Telangana government’s decision to ensure 42% reservations for Backward Classes in local bodies is not arbitrary. It is based on extensive caste survey data, social indicators, and grassroots political realities. This legislation aims to ensure that the OBC communities, who constitute a substantial portion of the state's population, receive representation in proportion to their numbers—a principle consistent with democratic equity. The Telangana Social, Economic, Educational, Employment, Political, and Caste (SEEEPC) Survey has revealed that Backward Classes constitute approximately 56.33% of the state’s population. In response, the state government established a dedicated commission to recommend measures for BC reservations. Based on the commission’s recommendations, the government passed two legislations proposing 42% reservations for Backward Classes in education, employment, and local bodies. These measures will raise the overall reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs from 54% to 67%, in addition to the existing 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). However, given the judiciary's past interventions and the potential challenge of exceeding the 50% cap, the implementation of this legislation requires constitutional protection. The Telangana government has thus urged the Union government to include these laws in the Ninth Schedule, which would insulate them from legal scrutiny and affirm the state's constitutional authority to enact such measures. The Ninth Schedule of the Constitution was created through the First Constitutional Amendment of 1951, primarily to protect agrarian reform laws from being invalidated by courts on the grounds of violating fundamental rights. Under Article 31B, any law added to this schedule is deemed valid and immune from challenge, even if it infringes upon fundamental rights. Even though the Supreme Court, in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), ruled that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 1973 can be reviewed if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution, the schedule still provides robust protection for social justice-oriented legislation. It reflects the Constitution's evolving understanding that judicial review must not override the legislative intent of inclusion and equity. Placing Telangana’s BC reservation laws in the Ninth Schedule would be a powerful assertion of the state’s autonomy, the Union government’s commitment to social equity, and the constitutional principle of cooperative federalism.
The Tamil Nadu model stands as a shining precedent of how legislative courage and political consensus can safeguard the rights of the marginalised. In 1993, Tamil Nadu enacted a law providing 69% overall reservation in education and public employment. To protect this legislation from legal challenges, it was included in the Ninth Schedule with the support of the Union government. What sets the Tamil Nadu example apart is the unanimous political will behind it. Leaders across the political spectrum—be it the DMK, AIADMK, or Dravidar Kazhagam—came together to defend the law. Dr. K. Veeramani, the ideological force behind the movement, emphasised that political differences must be set aside in the fight for social justice. His call for collective action resonated across parties, reinforcing that reservation is not just a policy issue, but a moral and constitutional necessity. Telangana’s demand today is in the same spirit. The BC communities across India, not just in Telangana, stand to benefit if the Union adopts a similar approach and includes these laws in the Ninth Schedule. To make social justice real and irreversible for OBCs, the following steps must be urgently taken by the Union government: amend Articles 15(4), 16(4), 243D(6) and 243T(6) of the Constitution to make proportional OBC representation in local bodies a binding obligation, not just a permissive clause. This would ensure that OBCs have guaranteed participation in grassroots democracy. Also, include all OBC reservation laws, especially Telangana’s 42% BC reservation acts, in the Ninth Schedule to protect them from judicial invalidation. This would uphold the spirit of the Constitution and prevent social justice laws from being diluted by court-imposed technicalities. The demand to include Telangana’s BC reservation laws in the Ninth Schedule is not confined to one state. It is a national imperative—a call to uphold the spirit of the Constitution, which promises justice and equal opportunity to all.
OBCs constitute a majority of India’s population, yet they remain marginalised in governance structures, even at the most basic levels. Placing the Telangana BC reservation laws in the Ninth Schedule would reaffirm that India values equity over elitism, and that our democracy is mature enough to correct structural imbalances through affirmative action. At this critical juncture, the Modi government must show resolve and leadership. By supporting Telangana’s demand, it can send a clear message: that constitutional justice is not negotiable, and that the Indian Republic stands with its most disadvantaged citizens in their pursuit of dignity, voice, and representation. Such a step would not merely be an act of legislative protection; it would be a resounding affirmation of the constitutional values that unite this diverse nation. The author, G Kiran Kumar, is the national president of the All India OBC Students Association, and the views expressed are his own.
Source: Why Telangana’s BC reservation laws should be shielded from judicial interventions