K Krishna Murthy v Union of India
Rule established
Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) are enabling provisions: reservation for backward classes in local bodies is permitted but not constitutionally compelled. Political reservation requires a separate and rigorous empirical inquiry, and the aggregate of reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes should not exceed fifty per cent of the total seats.
Facts
- Articles 243D and 243T require reservation of seats in Panchayats and Municipalities for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to population, and of not less than one third of seats for women.
- Clause (6) of each article additionally provides that nothing in the Part shall prevent a State Legislature from making provision for reservation of seats or offices in favour of backward classes.
- Several States enacted laws reserving substantial percentages of seats for backward classes.
- In some districts and local bodies the aggregate of reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes exceeded fifty per cent of the total seats, in some instances very considerably.
- The identification of backward classes for this purpose had generally been made by adopting lists prepared for the purposes of employment and educational admissions.
- The provisions were challenged as excessive, as lacking any empirical foundation for political reservation, and as destroying the character of the elective process.
Issue
- Whether reservation of seats for backward classes in local bodies is constitutionally permissible; whether the identification may be made by adopting existing lists; and whether any ceiling applies.
Held
- Such reservation is permissible but conditional. First, Arts.243D(6) and 243T(6) are enabling: they confer a discretion on the State Legislature and impose no obligation, in contrast with the mandatory reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women. Second, reservation in political representation is different in nature from reservation in employment and education: the latter addresses backwardness affecting access to posts and institutions, whereas the former addresses inadequacy of representation in elected bodies. The identification of beneficiaries therefore requires a separate, contemporaneous and rigorous empirical inquiry directed to that question, and existing lists prepared for other purposes will not do. Third, the aggregate of reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes should ordinarily not exceed fifty per cent of the total seats in a local body.
Ratio Decidendi
The enabling language of clause (6) is deliberate, since the framers of the amendments treated the position of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women as calling for a guarantee, and left the position of backward classes to be assessed State by State. Because political backwardness is not the same phenomenon as educational or employment backwardness, a State that wishes to act must first establish the facts relating to representation. The ceiling follows from the character of an election: beyond a point, reservation ceases to adjust the composition of an elected body and begins to displace the electoral principle itself.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading case on reservation in local bodies. State the three propositions in order: enabling not mandatory, separate empirical inquiry, and the fifty per cent aggregate ceiling.
- The distinction most often asked for is between political reservation and reservation in employment and education, and the consequence that existing lists cannot simply be borrowed.
- Read with Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v State of Maharashtra 2021, which converted these propositions into an operative triple test and is the form in which the law is now applied.
- Note the contrast within Arts.243D and 243T themselves: clauses (1) to (4) are mandatory as to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women, while clause (6) is permissive as to backward classes.
- Compare the fifty per cent ceiling with the corresponding limit in the law of reservation in services, and note that the reasoning here is different, resting on the nature of an election rather than on efficiency of administration.
- In a problem, always check the aggregate in the particular local body or district, since the ceiling operates locally and not on a State average.
Source
Source: (2010) 7 SCC 202; AIR 2010 SC 2789; Constitution Bench of five Judges; the leading authority on reservation of seats in local bodies; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.