Supreme Court Seeks Maharashtra’s Data on Local Bodies Breaching 50% Reservation Cap
The Supreme Court of India has once again turned its attention to the contentious issue of reservation in Maharashtra’s local bodies. During a hearing on a contempt petition, the Court directed the State to provide a complete list of all local bodies where the total reservation—covering Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC)—exceeds the 50% constitutional ceiling. This order comes amid preparations for upcoming elections and ongoing disputes about the implementation of the Court’s earlier directions, particularly the 2021 “triple test” requirement.
Background: Contempt Petition and the 2021 Triple Test Judgment
The current proceedings arise from a contempt petition alleging that Maharashtra failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling. That judgment mandated that any OBC reservation in local bodies must satisfy a three-step test, now widely known as the "triple test":
-
Establish a dedicated commission to conduct a contemporaneous empirical study into the nature and extent of backwardness of OBCs in each local body.
-
Use the commission’s findings to determine the exact quantum of reservation needed for OBCs in each local body.
-
Ensure that the total reservation for SC, ST, and OBC categories does not exceed the 50% ceiling laid down by earlier constitutional jurisprudence.
Maharashtra constituted the Banthia Commission in 2021 to fulfil these requirements. The Commission submitted its report in 2022, recommending 27% OBC reservation, with adjustments (downward) in tribal-heavy districts to maintain the 50% limit.
Supreme Court’s Latest Intervention: Data on Bodies Exceeding 50%
During the latest hearing, the Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the State government and the State Election Commission (SEC) to submit an exhaustive list of all local bodies breaching the 50% quota cap.
The SEC informed the Court that, for elections scheduled on December 2, there are 57 local bodies where reservation exceeds 50%. However, the petitioner, represented by senior advocate Vikas Singh, disputed this figure, stating that the number may be significantly higher—potentially over 150 local bodies.
The Court directed the SEC to file a comprehensive statewide list by Friday, noting that elections to these 57 bodies will be subject to the outcome of ongoing proceedings.
Upcoming Elections: The State’s Submissions
The Maharashtra government informed the Court that elections are imminent for:
-
246 Municipal Councils
-
42 Nagar Panchayats
Elections for the following bodies are yet to be scheduled:
-
32 Zila Parishads
-
336 Panchayat Samitis
-
29 Municipal Corporations
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, stated that consultations are underway to ascertain how many bodies breach the 50% cap. He also referenced a May 6 Supreme Court order, which he said provided a basis for the State’s understanding of permissible reservations.
Banthia Commission Report: Key Findings and the Court’s Observations
The Banthia Commission was established specifically to fulfil the requirements of the triple test. Its major recommendations include:
-
27% OBC reservation for local bodies.
-
Reduction of OBC reservation in tribal-dominated districts, where existing ST reservation ranges from 14% to 24%.
-
Ensuring that the overall SC + ST + OBC reservation stays within the 50% limit.
The Court noted that any breach of the 50% threshold would jeopardize the constitutionality of the reservation structure. However, it also raised concerns about the “mass exclusion” of OBC communities, especially in tribal regions. The bench insisted that the State must ensure adequate representation of OBCs without violating the 50% cap.
Judicial Precedents and Constitutional Provisions
This issue is grounded in a long history of constitutional interpretation and judicial precedent.
Key Constitutional Articles
-
Article 14: Right to equality; prohibits arbitrary state action.
-
Article 15(4): Permits special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.
-
Article 16(4): Allows reservation in public employment for backward classes.
-
Article 243D & Article 243T: Provide for reservation in Panchayats and Municipalities.
-
Article 243-O: Bars judicial intervention in electoral matters after elections commence.
Key Judicial Precedents
1. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
-
Introduced the 50% ceiling on reservation to maintain equality.
-
Recognized backwardness as a contextual and empirical determination.
2. K. Krishnamurthy v. Union of India (2010)
-
Held that OBC reservation in local bodies must be backed by empirical data.
-
Laid the foundation for the triple test, later formalized in 2021.
3. Supreme Court Judgment (2021)
-
Affirmed the triple test requirement for OBC reservation in local body elections.
-
Directed states to set up dedicated commissions.
4. Banthia Commission Case
-
A three-judge bench upheld the validity of the Banthia Commission’s data-driven recommendations.
These precedents collectively ensure that reservation structures balance social justice, empirical justification, and constitutional limits.
Court’s Present Stance: Balancing Representation and Constitutional Limits
The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not opposed to holding elections. Instead, its priority is to ensure a “workable measure” that restores grassroots democracy without violating constitutional mandates.
The Court stated:
-
Elections must proceed.
-
Local bodies exceeding 50% reservation cap will be subject to final orders.
-
The State must ensure compliance with the Banthia Commission findings.
-
Adequate OBC representation must be protected where possible.
Concerns Raised by Petitioners and OBC Groups
Senior advocate Vikas Singh argued that the SEC’s figure of 57 bodies was understated. OBC petitioners represented by senior advocate Indira Jaising opposed the 50% cap suggested by the Banthia Commission, especially in tribal-dominated areas where OBC communities risk being entirely excluded.
The Court instructed the State to carefully consider:
-
Demographic presence of OBCs in each area.
-
Whether the cap disproportionately excludes OBCs.
-
How representation can be balanced with constitutional limits.
Previous Court Directions: The May 6 and September 16 Orders
The Supreme Court’s earlier orders include:
-
May 6 Order: Clarified the conditions for conducting elections with reservations.
-
September 16 Order: Granted a one-time concession allowing the SEC to complete pending local body polls by January 31, 2026, based on pre-2022 rules.
These orders continue to guide the SEC’s conduct during the current dispute.
Conclusion: A Statewide Reassessment of Reservation Compliance
Maharashtra now faces a crucial task: compiling accurate, body-wise reservation data to demonstrate compliance with the 50% cap and the 2021 triple test. The Supreme Court’s insistence on precision reflects not only the legal importance of reservation limits but also the democratic necessity of ensuring fair representation.
With elections approaching, the State must quickly address discrepancies. The Court has signaled that while grassroots democracy should not be paralysed, reservation laws cannot be implemented arbitrarily. The upcoming data submission and subsequent hearings may shape how reservation policies evolve—not only in Maharashtra but across India.

Comments
Post a Comment