The Andhra Pradesh High Court on October 1 set aside the State Government orders providing 34% reservation for Backward Classes (BCs) in Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) and 33.33% reservation in Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), to the extent that the aggregate vertical reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and BCs exceeds 50%.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held that, in the factual circumstances before it, there was no empirical data as envisaged and required under the Supreme Court's judgments to justify reservation for BCs beyond the 50% aggregate ceiling.

The judgment was delivered on October 1 in a batch of four Public Interest Litigations concerning BC reservation and elections to local bodies in Andhra Pradesh.

Cases before the HC

The petitioners had challenged G.O.Ms.No.105 dated August 20, 2026, under which the State restored 34% BC reservation in various offices and seats in Panchayat Raj Institutions, including Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads.

The other challenge concerned G.O.Rt.No.1065 dated August 19, 2026, through which the State directed implementation of existing one-third, or 33.33%, BC reservation in Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats.

The petitioners argued that the orders failed to ensure that the aggregate vertical reservation for SCs, STs and BCs remained within the 50% ceiling laid down in the Supreme Court's judgments.

State Relied On Unified Family Survey

The State defended the orders by relying upon data collected through a Unified Family Survey conducted under the Family Benefit Management System.

It also relied upon the work of an Independent Dedicated Commission headed by retired IAS officer Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, constituted in February 2026 to undertake a contemporaneous and rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature, extent and implications of backwardness in relation to local bodies.

The Commission conducted field visits, interacted with officials and local communities, invited representations and consulted experts. It received 653 representations and submitted its report to the State Government on August 14, 2026.

However, the High Court noted that the report remained under consideration and had not been accepted by the Government.

The State submitted that the impugned orders were based on fresh demographic and empirical material. It contended that the resulting aggregate vertical reservation was 61.08% in PRIs and 49.24% in ULBs.

'Unified Family Survey Cannot Form Basis' For BC Reservation

The High Court, however, held that the Unified Family Survey data could not form the basis for declaring BC reservation beyond 50%.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgments in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra and Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, the Bench observed that any breach of the 50% ceiling would have to be supported by substantial facts and figures justifying such departure.

The Court observed: " Reliance is being placed by State on the empirical data collected by Unified Family Survey, which, in our considered opinion, cannot form the basis of declaration for reservation for Backward Classes."

It further held that, in the factual circumstances before it, there was "no empirical data as envisaged and required" for BC reservation beyond 50%.

Consequently, the two Government Orders were held unsustainable to the extent that the vertical reservation for SCs, STs and BCs collectively exceeded 50% and were set aside to that extent.

State Can Revisit BC Quota After Fresh Data Exercise

The Court clarified that its ruling does not permanently foreclose the State from considering BC reservation beyond 50%.

It expressly left it open to the State to revisit the issue and determine the percentage of BC reservation beyond 50%, keeping in view Janhit Abhiyan, after completing the exercise of collecting data in compliance with Vikas Kishanrao Gawali.

The Bench also referred to its earlier judgment in Birru Prathap Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had held that vertical reservation for SCs, STs and BCs in aggregate could not exceed 50%, subject to the recognised exception concerning Scheduled Areas. That judgment had also resulted in the earlier 34% BC reservation being set aside where the aggregate reservation reached 59.85%.

HC Rejects Plea For Mandatory BC Sub-Classification

A separate PIL sought a direction to the State to implement sub-classification among BCs, including BC-A, BC-B, BC-C, BC-D and BC-E.

The High Court noted that sub-classification within a class is not inherently impermissible. However, whether a class is homogeneous or similarly situated and whether a particular group is more disadvantaged are matters requiring consideration by the State.

The Bench held that no mandamus could be issued directing the State to carry out such sub-classification and dismissed the PIL.

Another PIL challenging the constitution of the Dedicated Commissions was also dismissed.

The Court declined to examine their validity because the writ petition contained no specific challenge to the relevant Government Orders, depriving the State of an opportunity to respond.

Case title: Thandava Yogesh v The State Election Commission and others (and connected petitions)

Tags: