Supreme Court upholds quashing of Andhra Pradesh 34% BC local body quota
Why in the news
On 9 October 2026, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order striking down 34% reservation for Backward Classes (BCs) in local body elections, dismissing the State’s appeal.
Key facts
- Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.
- Case: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Thandava Yogesh.
- Quashed orders: government orders giving 34% BC reservation in rural and urban local body polls.
- Ground: overall reservation went past the 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), and the State had no empirical data to justify the breach.
- The High Court also doubted the data used to fix the figure at 34%.
- Unified Family Survey: Justice Datta asked under which law the survey was conducted, questioning its legal footing.
- The bench found the High Court’s reasoning sound and dismissed the plea; Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had argued for the State.
About the 50% ceiling
The Indra Sawhney v. Union of India judgment of 1992 fixed 50% as the upper limit on total reservation. In the Andhra Pradesh case, the High Court held that crossing this limit for local body seats required empirical data, which the State failed to produce; the Supreme Court found this approach very reasonable.
Exam angle
- Indra Sawhney (1992) is the source of the 50% cap on reservation.
- Empirical, quantifiable data is essential to justify quota levels.
- Quota applied to both rural and urban local body elections.