ExplainedReservation
The 50% reservation ceiling explained: why Karnataka's quota hike fell and what the Ninth Schedule can do
Karnataka has gone to the Supreme Court after the High Court struck down its 56% SC/ST quota. Where the 50% limit comes from, who has crossed it, and why the Ninth Schedule keeps coming up.
The short answer
The 50% ceiling is a rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (1992): reservation under Articles 15 and 16 should not normally pass half of all seats or posts, and can do so only in exceptional circumstances backed by evidence. The Karnataka High Court applied it on October 12, 2026, to strike down a 2022 law taking the state's total to 56%, and the state filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on November 11, 2026. Tamil Nadu's 69% survives because its law sits in the Ninth Schedule, a shield that courts have since made weaker.
What is the 50% ceiling?
It is a limit the Supreme Court set in 1992, not a line written in the Constitution. In the Indra Sawhney case, the Court held that reservation under Article 16(4), which covers jobs, should not exceed 50% in total. The same logic has since been applied to admissions under Article 15.
The ceiling is not absolute. The Court allowed the state to go beyond it only in extraordinary circumstances, and the state has to show those circumstances with evidence. That exception is the ground on which almost every quota dispute is now fought.
What did the Karnataka High Court decide?
It struck down two sections of the state’s 2022 SC/ST law on October 12, 2026. That law lifted Scheduled Caste reservation from 15% to 17% and Scheduled Tribe reservation from 3% to 7%. With the OBC quota unchanged at 32%, the total went from 50% to 56%.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K S Hema Lekha held that crossing 50% needs a compelling, evidence-based justification, and the state had not given one. The Bench accepted that the state can make such a law, but said that power does not free it from other limits in the Constitution. It also found that the state consulted the National Commissions for SCs and STs only after the law was in force, which it did not treat as real consultation.
Is the ceiling the same everywhere?
No, but the courts have mostly enforced it. The Supreme Court confirmed the rule on May 5, 2021, when a five-judge Bench struck down Maharashtra’s 2018 law that would have taken reservation from 52% to 68%. It found no extraordinary situation and declined to send Indra Sawhney to a larger Bench.
One exception came in November 2022. By a 3 to 2 majority, the Court upheld the 10% quota for economically weaker sections, holding that the 50% cap applies to the reservations for backward classes and SC/ST under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4), not to the new EWS quota, which counts as additional. The dissenting judges warned that breaching the cap would reshape the equality framework.
How does Tamil Nadu keep 69%?
Through the Ninth Schedule. Tamil Nadu’s total grew in steps from 41% before 1971 to 49% in 1971, 68% in 1980 and 69% in 1990, split as 26.5% backward classes, 20% most backward classes, 3.5% BC Muslims, 18% SC and 1% ST. When courts pressed the state to return to 50% in 1993, the Assembly passed a resolution, then a new law, and had it placed in the Ninth Schedule.
Article 31B says laws in that Schedule are not void for conflicting with fundamental rights, “notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court”. Placing a law there needs a constitutional amendment by Parliament.
Does the Ninth Schedule still give full protection?
Not any more. On January 11, 2007, a nine-judge Bench in the I R Coelho case held that a law added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can be challenged if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution, tested against rights such as Articles 14, 19 and 21. A law the Court has already upheld cannot be challenged again.
Challenges to Tamil Nadu’s law have been held back in the Supreme Court pending the larger Mandal questions. So the Ninth Schedule is best read as a strong shield that courts can still examine, not a guarantee.
Why does Karnataka talk about it now?
Because the state says it is the only permanent fix. Karnataka’s Assembly passed a resolution on December 18, 2025, asking the Centre to place its quota in the Ninth Schedule. The Centre told Parliament on July 25, 2026, that the request would be deferred because the matter was before the High Court. After the verdict, the state said it would fight in the Supreme Court and keep pressing the Centre.
The state’s release also points out that Karnataka has five Union ministers and 19 Lok Sabha MPs from the BJP and the JD(S), and that no constitutional amendment has been introduced. No response from the Centre was available on Wednesday night.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court has to admit the petition and decide whether to stay the High Court order. No hearing date has been reported. If the Court upholds the High Court, Karnataka is left with the Ninth Schedule route or a fresh evidence-based case for going past 50%, as the Nagamohan Das Commission findings were held not to be enough.
In the meantime, appointments under the higher quota carry a note that they are subject to the final decision, so those selected have no protection if the increase is finally set aside. The Madhya Pradesh High Court struck down that state’s 27% OBC quota on the same ground in October, so other states are waiting on the same question. This explainer reflects the position as of November 12, 2026.