‘Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq’: A Constitutional Slippery Slope?
Written by Venkatramanan Krishnamurthy
For Congress, the defining image of 2024 shows Rahul Gandhi holding high the copy of Indian Constitution- warning of threats to it from Modi-BJP-RSS and vowing to defend it at all costs. In every rally he repeated that if BJP comes to power in 2024, it will abolish caste reservations though BJP never made any announcement even remotely to substantiate this charge. To save the constitution, Rahul Gandhi argued that since 80% of the population in the country belong to SC, STs and OBCs, capping reservation at 50% is artificial and unfair. He promised to remove 50% cap and make reservation in proportion to the population. “jitni abadi utna haq” became a war cry which Rahul Gandhi continue even one year after the 2024 general election.
While many talked about the electoral effectiveness or lack of it of Rahul Gandhi’s campaign to increase reservation beyond 50% and make it proportional to the population of each caste, there has been hardly any scrutiny about the constitutionality and the eventual impact if these proposals were implemented.
“We are doing what we are not looking like doing”
In the classic British political satire Yes, Prime Minister, there’s a moment that brilliantly depicts the art of political image manipulation. Sir Humphrey Appleby, the scheming Cabinet Secretary, schools Prime Minister Hacker on a golden rule: Appearance must contradict your message. To sound radical while reassuring the establishment? Dress conservatively (dark suit, traditional tie) and speak softly (“evolution, not revolution”). To pose as a reformer while changing nothing? Dress like a disruptor (lighter suits, open collar) and shout empty slogans (“transformative change!”). Rahul Gandhi, it seems, has taken Sir Humphrey’s advice to heart—literally. He brandishes the Constitution like a sacred text, yet his Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq proposal is a constitutional wrecking ball, smashing the very equality it claims to uphold. His optics scream “defender of the Constitution,” while his policies scream “subversion of the Constitution.”
50% cap reservation is not a random number pulled out of thin air and it was first propounded by none other than Dr. Ambedkar himself and crystallized by several judicial pronouncements
Rahul Gandhi’s campaign rhetoric portrays the 50% reservation ceiling as an artificial cap imposed by the BJP government without constitutional basis, promising its removal. The BJP’s lackluster response and the media’s failure to scrutinize his claims have only amplified this narrative.
The truth is, the 50% rule is neither artificial nor created by BJP – it is firmly rooted in constitutional principles. This limit ensures that equality is not eclipsed by reservations, merit-based opportunities remain viable, and social justice is balanced with administrative efficiency. This was articulated by none other than Dr. B R Ambedkar and reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of it’s judgements.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, very clearly articulated that if reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, it must be confined to the reservation of a minority of seats. In his reply in the Constituent [Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. 7 (1948-49) pp. 701-02], Dr. Ambedkar said:
“Let me give an illustration. Supposing, for instance, reservations were made for a community or a collection of communities, the total of which came to something like 70 per cent. of the total posts under the State and only 30 per cent. are retained as the unreserved. Could anybody say that the reservation of 30 per cent. as open to general competition would be satisfactory from the point of view of giving effect to the first principle, namely, that there shall be equality of opportunity? It cannot be in my judgment. Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minority of seats. It is then only that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation.”
Indra Sawhney Judgement: 50% reservation limit and rejection of proportional representation
In its landmark Indra Sawhney judgment, the Supreme Court emphatically upheld the 50% ceiling on reservations, ruling that exceeding this limit would allow the “exception” (reservation) to “eat away the rule” (equality), thereby destabilizing the constitutional framework. In para 808, the court said:
“It needs no emphasis to say that the principal aim of Articles 14 and 16 is equality and equality of opportunity and that clause (4) of Article 16 is but a means of achieving the very same objective. Clause (4) is a special provision — though not an exception to clause (1). Both the provisions have to be harmonised keeping in mind the fact that both are but the re-statements of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14. The provision under Article 16(4) — conceived in the interest of certain sections of society — should be balanced against the guarantee of equality enshrined in clause (1) of Article 16 which is a guarantee held out to every citizen and to the entire society. It is relevant to point out that Dr Ambedkar himself contemplated reservation being “confined to a minority of seats” (See his speech in Constituent Assembly, set out in para 693). No other member of the Constituent Assembly suggested otherwise. It is, thus, clear that reservation of a majority of seats was never envisaged by the Founding Fathers. Nor are we satisfied that the present context requires us to depart from that concept.”
Justice Kuldip Singh (Concurring, Para 384) reinforced this principle:
“that the reservations under Article 16(4) must remain below 50% and under no circumstance be permitted to go beyond 50%. Any reservation beyond 50% is constitutionally invalid..”
Similarly, Justice R.M. Sahai (Concurring, Para 618) observed:
“No provision of reservation or preference can be so vigorously pursued as to destroy the very concept of equality. Benign discrimination or protection cannot under any constitutional system itself become the principal clause. Equality is the rule. Protection is the exception. Exception cannot exhaust the rule itself. True no restriction was placed on size of reservation. But reason was the consensus understanding that it was for minority of seats. That apart the reservation under Article 16(4) cannot be taken in isolation. Article 16(1) and Article 16(4) being part of same objective and goal, any policy of reservation must constitutionally withstand the test of interaction between the two. In this perspective reservation cannot be except for, ‘minority of seats’. .”
The court ruled that there is no case of proportional reservation (Para 505 )
“As pointed out earlier, Dr Ambedkar was not only not in favour of proportional representation but was on the contrary, of the firm view that the reservations under Article 16(4) should be confined to the minority of the posts/appointments. In fact, as the debate in the Constituent Assembly shows nobody even suggested that the reservations under Article 16(4) should be in proportion to the population of the backward classes.*
M. Nagaraj Judgment: Triple Test
The Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) in para 122 further crystallized the limits of reservation by emphasising the “triple test”:
“We reiterate that the ceiling limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.“
Maratha Judgement: Reservation beyond 50% is a “Slippery Slope” to Caste Rule
The Constitution Bench in Dr. Jaishri Patil v. State of Maharashtra popularly known as “Maratha Judgement” struck down the Maratha quota, warning that breaching the 50% limit would lead to “caste rule”. The Court held (Para 399):
“To change the 50% limit is to have a society which is not founded on equality but based on caste rule. Democracy is an essential feature of our Constitution and part of our basic structure. If the reservation goes above 50% limit which is a reasonable, it will be slippery slope, the political pressure, will make it hardly to reduce the same. Thus, answer to the question posed is that the percentage of 50% has been arrived at on the principle of reasonability and achieves equality as enshrined by Article 14 of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets..”
The Supreme Court further clarified (Para 480) that even 85% backward class population does not justify exceeding the limit, citing Dr. Ambedkar’s Constituent Assembly debates (30.11.1948):
“Dr. Ambedkar’s illustration—that reserving 70% of posts while leaving 30% open would violate equality—was unequivocally rejected by the Constituent Assembly. The High Court’s reasoning (based on population share) is thus constitutionally untenable.”
Hence, Rahul Gandhi’s proposal for increasing reservation beyond 50% and making it proportion of the population each caste is a constitutional travesty—one that replaces equality with caste arithmetic and undermines the vision of India’s founders.
Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq: Subversion of constitution by destroy the Fundamentals and making temporary provision as permanent
The framers of the constitution particularly Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, envisioned caste reservation only as a temporary and exceptional provision. By demanding that quotas be expanded in proportion to population, Rahul Gandhi seeks to entrench caste divisions in perpetuity, transforming what was meant to be a limited corrective mechanism into an unending regime of identity-based entitlements. Far from being social justice, Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq is a dangerous ploy to weaponize demography and immortalize caste divisions. If a community’s share in reservations is decided solely based on it’s population numbers, it perversely disincentivizes education, women’s empowerment, and economic upliftment—why would any group voluntarily reduce its numbers if doing so means losing quota benefits?
The Fatal Flaw in “Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq”: Why Proportional Reservation is a Mathematical and Social Impossibility?
The seductive simplicity of “Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq” crumbles when confronted with India’s mind-boggling caste complexity. With over 4,500 officially recognized castes – including 1,284 Scheduled Castes (SCs) , 747 Scheduled Tribes (STs), and 2,479 Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the central list alone – the arithmetic of proportional representation becomes a nightmare. The Socio-Economic Caste Census 2011 revealed India has an astonishing 46 lakh castes, with Maharashtra alone accounting for 4.26 lakh distinct caste identities. Even if we consider only the officially listed 4,500 castes of SC, ST and OBCs, the logistical impossibility of distributing opportunities proportionally becomes apparent.
Within existing reservation categories, dominant castes routinely corner benefits while hundreds of smaller groups remain excluded. The Vanniyar agitation in Tamil Nadu exemplifies this crisis – despite being classified as a Most Backward Class, they’re demanding exclusive quotas that would shut out other MBC communities. Implement “Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq” nationally, and you’d unleash an endless cycle of caste wars as every community fights for its slice of the shrinking pie.
More dangerously, it would incentivize demographic inflation – communities would have perverse incentives to boost their numbers rather than their development indicators.
Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq: Punishing the progressive states
If Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq—the principle of representation based solely on population, is applied to parliamentary delimitation, it would lead to a significant shift in the power equations of the States. Progressive states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala , Karnataka etc which invested heavily in education, women’s empowerment, and family planning, stand to lose significant share of parliamentary seats because they responsibly controlled their populations and hence their share in the national population is less than what it was in 1971 when the last delimitation took place. Simply put, the status of these states in the national power structure would be seriously weakened precisely because they took pains to develop themselves. Meanwhile, states like Uttar Pradesh Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh etc which failed to curb population growth due to poor governance and lack of human development, would gain even more political power.
Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq: Danger of this principle spilling over beyond caste
If proportionality is the gold standard of justice, why stop at caste? Apply the same logic to states, and the absurdity of the proposition unravels.
Consider this: Karnataka houses just 4% of India’s population but accounts for over 40% of its software exports. Nearly 90% of the IT sector—and much of India’s industrial might—is concentrated in six states (Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Gujarat, Delhi, and Haryana), which together represent barely 15–20% of the national population. By the rigid logic of Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq, this is an unconscionable “cornering” of opportunity by a privileged minority. Should we then mandate that future factories and tech parks be distributed strictly according to state population shares? And why not? It’s Jitni Abaadi Utna Haq!!!
Venkatramanan Krishnamurthy is a management professional and academician.