Is the 50% ceiling on reservations still a constitutional constant after the EWS judgment? Discuss with reference to local body elections.

The 50% ceiling is not written in the Constitution. The Supreme Court created it in Indra Sawhney (1992) for public jobs. The EWS judgment has made the limit flexible in general. For backward-class seats in local bodies, however, the courts still treat it as a firm limit.

How the EWS judgment loosened the ceiling

• In Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022), a 3:2 majority upheld the 103rd Amendment. It held that the 50% limit is flexible and applies only to backward-class quotas, not to every kind of reservation [3].
• The dissent warned that this would become a "gateway for further breaches" [3].
• A 10% EWS quota added to SC/ST/OBC quotas can therefore take total reservation in jobs and education above 50%.

Why the ceiling still applies to local bodies

• Constitutional basis: Art. 243D(6) and 243T(6) only allow States to reserve seats for backward classes. K. Krishna Murthy (2010) applied the 50% limit to these seats and held that political backwardness is different from educational backwardness.
• Triple test: Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (2021) requires three things: a dedicated commission, quotas fixed local body by local body, and no more than 50% of seats for SC, ST and OBC together [4].
• Elections come first: In Suresh Mahajan (2022), the Supreme Court told the State Election Commission not to wait. If the triple test is not done, every seat except SC/ST seats is notified as General [2].
• Recent example: The Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down a 34% BC quota in Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) and 33.33% in Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) because total reservation breached the 50% ceiling. It also rejected data from the State's general "unified family survey" [1].

Assessment

• For calling it a constant: EWS seats fall outside the backward-class group, so the judgment gives no room to raise BC quotas above 50% [3].
• Against: The A.P. High Court told the State to keep Janhit Abhiyan in view when it fixes the BC share again [1]. Even this court treats the question as not fully settled.

In short, the 50% ceiling is no longer a fixed constant for reservation as a whole. For backward-class seats in local bodies, it is still binding. States should set up permanent BC commissions that update data for each local body before every election cycle. A Constitution Bench ruling on the ceiling after the EWS judgment would settle the question. Together, these would protect both representation and timely elections (Art. 243E/243U), in line with the Constitution's promise of substantive equality.