The 50% ceiling on reservations is a judicial creation and not a constitutional mandate. Critically examine in light of recent State legislations and court rulings.

Articles 15(4) and 16(4) allow reservation but set no numerical cap. The 50% limit was laid down by a nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney (1992), which allowed it to be crossed only in "extraordinary situations" [1]. The statement is correct about the text. However, the ceiling gets its force from the Constitution's equality code.

Why the ceiling is a judicial creation

• No textual basis: Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are enabling provisions. The figure "50%" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
• Flexible by design: Indra Sawhney itself allowed exceptions for remote populations outside the mainstream [1].
• Diluted by the EWS ruling: Janhit Abhiyan (2022) upheld the 10% EWS quota above 50% by a 3:2 majority. The judges treated the cap as not inflexible [2].
• Legislative bypass: Tamil Nadu's 69% quota was placed in the Ninth Schedule through the 76th Amendment (1994).

Why it is more than judicial whim

• Equality balance: Art. 16(4) is meant to work alongside the guarantee of equal opportunity in Art. 16(1), not to swallow it [1].
• Administrative efficiency: Art. 335 requires SC/ST claims to be consistent with efficiency of administration.
• Reaffirmed by a Constitution Bench: In Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (2021), the Court struck down the Maratha quota because no extraordinary circumstances were shown to justify crossing 50% [3].

Recent State legislations and rulings

• Karnataka: The 2022 Act raised the SC quota from 15% to 17% and the ST quota from 3% to 7%, taking total reservation to about 56% [4]. In October 2026 a Division Bench of the High Court struck down Sections 3 and 4 as "constitutionally impermissible" [5].
• Bihar: After its caste survey, Bihar raised its quota to 65%. The Patna High Court struck this down in 2024 [6].
• Maharashtra: In 2024 the State re-enacted a 10% Maratha quota on top of existing reservations [7]. This shows a repeating cycle of laws being passed and then challenged in court.

Conclusion

The ceiling was made by judges, but it reflects a constitutional principle: a balance between formal and substantive equality. One way forward is for a bench larger than nine judges to settle why the cap binds SC/ST/OBC quotas but not EWS. States should justify any breach with quantifiable data, as required in M. Nagaraj. They can also use sub-classification, allowed in Davinder Singh (2024), to share benefits within existing quotas. Any change to the cap itself should come through a constitutional amendment. Together these would protect both Article 14 and the goal of reduced inequality in SDG 10.