Do the recent judgments on EWS reservation dilute the Indra Sawhney ceiling? Discuss with reference to State attempts to enhance SC/ST quotas.

The 50% ceiling on reservations does not appear in the Constitution's text. Judges created it in Indra Sawhney (1992, nine-judge bench), and the Supreme Court reaffirmed it in the Maratha quota case [4]. The EWS verdict has made the ceiling less rigid in principle. But it has not weakened the ceiling for SC/ST quotas, and recent State laws show this.

How the EWS ruling loosened the ceiling

• Janhit Abhiyan (2022) upheld the 103rd Amendment's 10% EWS quota. It held that the 50% limit is "not inflexible" [3].
• Central reservation now effectively stands at about 60% (SC 15 + ST 7.5 + OBC 27 + EWS 10).
• The ruling suggests that a constitutional amendment can create exceptions to the ceiling, which a State law cannot.

Why the ceiling still binds SC/ST/OBC quotas

• The Court said the ceiling applies only to SC/ST/OBC reservations [3]. So the EWS exception gives no cover to higher caste-based quotas.
• Janhit Abhiyan had five judges and cannot overrule a nine-judge bench. In the Maratha case (2021), the Court refused to refer Indra Sawhney to a larger bench and found no "exceptional circumstances" to justify crossing 50% [4].

State attempts to raise SC/ST quotas

• 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% [2]. A High Court Division Bench struck down Sections 3 and 4 as "constitutionally impermissible" [1].
• Maharashtra: After the 2021 ruling, a 2024 Bill again proposed a 10% Maratha quota [5]. This is a repeating cycle: States legislate and courts strike the law down.
• Tamil Nadu: Its 69% law is protected through the Ninth Schedule, but it can still be tested against the basic structure after I.R. Coelho (2007).
• The anomaly: A quota based on economic status may exceed 50%, while one that addresses historic caste exclusion may not.

Way forward

• Data: States should provide community-wise quantifiable data from caste surveys to prove "extraordinary situations".
• Sub-classification: Dividing the existing SC quota, as permitted by Davinder Singh (2024), improves fairness without breaching the cap.
• Settle the question: A bench larger than nine judges should decide the status of the ceiling, or Parliament should change it through an openly debated amendment.

The EWS rulings have weakened the ceiling's rigidity in principle but not its application to SC/ST quotas, as Karnataka's verdict shows. Settling the question openly, with evidence, can balance Article 16(4)'s substantive equality against Article 16(1)'s equal opportunity. That would serve the Preamble's promise of social, economic and political justice.