AP BC Reservation in Local Bodies: Supreme Court Verdict and Mishra Commission Report

Why in news

The Supreme Court dismissed Andhra Pradesh’s appeal and upheld the High Court order that struck down 34% BC reservation in local bodies for breaching the 50% ceiling. Soon after, the AP Cabinet accepted the Rajeev Ranjan Mishra Dedicated Commission report, fixing BC reservation local body-wise, with an average of 28.18%.

Key points

Court rulings

• AP High Court: struck down the orders that gave 34% to BCs in Panchayat Raj Institutions and 33.33% in urban local bodies. It directed the government and the State Election Commission to start the election process within six weeks.
• Supreme Court: ruled that the High Court order was reasonable. The reservation went beyond the 50% limit set in Indra Sawhney (1992), and there was no empirical data to justify crossing it.
• In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled that the local body polls cannot be delayed because the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is under way.

AP Cabinet decision

• Accepted the report of the Dedicated Commission headed by Rajeev Ranjan Mishra.
• Purpose of the commission: to collect empirical data on the backwardness of BCs in each local body, as required by the Supreme Court’s triple test, so that BC reservation can be fixed local body-wise without crossing the 50% limit.
• Total SC + ST + BC reservation will not exceed 50% in any local body.
• Order of calculation: ST quota first, then SC (both on Census 2011), then the BC share within the remaining room.
• Data used for BCs: Unified Family Survey, Ward and Village Secretariats data, NFHS, records of the Panchayat Raj and Municipal departments, and the Census.
• BC quota by post (state government figures):

• The government expects BCs to get more than 38,000 posts. The ruling coalition promised more than 34% of its party tickets to BCs where the legal quota is lower.

Background / static link

• Article 243D: reservation in Panchayats for SCs and STs (by population) and women (at least one-third). Article 243D(6) lets states reserve seats for backward classes.
• Article 243T: the same for Municipalities; 243T(6) covers backward classes.
• K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India (2010): the Supreme Court ruled that political backwardness differs from social and educational backwardness. Local body reservation for BCs is allowed but must be justified and must generally stay within 50%.
• Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2021) – the triple test:
  1. Set up a dedicated commission to carry out a contemporaneous, rigorous empirical inquiry into backwardness for local bodies.
  2. Specify the reservation local body-wise based on the commission’s findings.
  3. Total SC + ST + OBC reservation must not exceed 50%.
• Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022): elections cannot be held up indefinitely; without a completed triple test, the seats go to the general category.
• AP history (as stated by the state government): 20% BC quota in local bodies in 1987, raised to 34% in 1995.

Significance

• Rule of law: confirms that the 50% ceiling and triple test bind every state, whatever the political promise.
• Data-based reservation: reservation is now fixed for each local body based on its own population data, not one flat figure for the state.
• Timely elections: the HC’s six-week direction and the SC’s refusal to allow delays protect the constitutional duty to hold local polls on time (Article 243E and 243U set a five-year term).
• Model for other states: shows a legally safe path for OBC quotas in local bodies.

Concerns / challenges

• Lower share than promised: the average of 28.18% is below the 34% that BCs had earlier, which may cause dissatisfaction.
• Old SC/ST data: SC and ST quotas still use Census 2011 because newer caste census data is not yet available.
• Areas with high SC/ST share: in tribal areas, little or no room is left for BCs under the 50% cap.
• Data quality: state survey data can be challenged in court, as happened with the 34% orders.

Telangana angle

Telangana faced the same issue. The Telangana High Court stayed the state’s order that raised BC reservation in local bodies to 42% (taking the total to 67%). The Supreme Court then dismissed the state’s plea against that stay. Both states show that the triple test and the 50% cap cannot be bypassed by executive orders.

Read our earlier explainer: AP BC Reservation Commission 2026

Practice MCQs

Q1. Which of the following is NOT part of the Supreme Court’s “triple test” for OBC reservation in local bodies?

1. Setting up a dedicated commission for an empirical inquiry
2. Specifying the proportion of reservation local body-wise
3. Total SC, ST and OBC reservation not exceeding 50%
4. Excluding the creamy layer through an income limit of ₹8 lakh

Answer: (d). The triple test has only the first three conditions. The creamy layer rule applies to jobs and education, not this test.

Q2. Which constitutional provisions enable states to reserve seats for backward classes in Panchayats and Municipalities respectively?

1. Article 243D(6) and Article 243T(6)
2. Article 15(4) and Article 16(4)
3. Article 243K and Article 243ZA
4. Article 340 and Article 342A

Answer: (a). 243D(6) covers Panchayats and 243T(6) covers Municipalities. 243K and 243ZA deal with State Election Commissions.

Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the recent AP Cabinet decision on BC reservation in local bodies:

1. BC reservation was fixed at a uniform 34% across all local bodies.
2. SC and ST quotas were calculated first, based on Census 2011.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1. 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (b). BC quotas vary by post (average 28.18%); ST and SC quotas were fixed first using Census 2011.

Mains practice question

“The triple test balances social justice with constitutional limits.” Discuss with reference to the recent BC reservation issues in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana local bodies. (250 words, 15 marks)