Supreme Court dismissed Andhra Pradesh’s appeal against the High Court ruling that struck down the 34% Backward Classes quota in local body elections

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to revive the Andhra Pradesh government’s 34 per cent reservation for Backward Classes in local body elections. It dismissed the State’s appeal against a High Court judgment that had struck down two government orders providing the quota on the ground that it breached the 50 per cent ceiling on total reservation.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said the Andhra Pradesh High Court had passed a reasonable order.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the State.

During the hearing today, the Bench examined the High Court’s finding that the data relied on by the State could not form the basis for determining reservation. The State had relied on data gathered through a Unified Family Survey.

“First show us under what law this family survey is made,” Justice Datta told the State.

Justice Datta also asked the State to show why the data could be considered for this purpose, and to address the legal basis for relying on the survey data.

The Bench noted that the report of the commission, which was stated to have been submitted, had not been accepted by the State Government and remained pending.

In the absence of any challenge to the commission, the Bench observed, “The validity of the commission itself is not under consideration in the present proceedings”.

Senior Advocate Rohatgi sought time to place the report before the Court. He referred to a Rajasthan case involving 57 per cent reservation.

Justice Datta again asked the State to address the legal basis for relying on the survey data.

Thereafter, the Court dismissed the matter.

What did the High Court observe? 

On October 1, the High Court had struck down the two government orders. It observed that the quota violated Supreme Court guidelines that total reservation should not exceed 50 per cent. It also directed the State Government and the State Election Commission to begin the election process within six weeks.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan had 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 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.

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 had 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.

Case Title: Andhra Pradesh v. Thandava Yogesh 

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu

Hearing Date: October 9, 2026

Tags: