Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy’s recent campaign declaration to replicate the controversial 4% reservations for Muslims in Maharashtra if the Congress takes power is a cynical play on identity politics that raises serious constitutional and ethical questions. The Supreme Court struck down a similar attempt by the undivided Andhra Pradesh government led by Dr Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy. Yet, here we are again, with politicians pandering to religious identities for votes, while the judiciary remains disturbingly passive. Let’s be clear: India is a secular nation. The Constitution does not sanction reservations based on religion. Yet, various state governments have skirted around this principle by classifying specific Muslim groups as ‘backward’ under the OBC category to extend benefits. For instance, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana have carved out sub-quotas within the OBC category for Muslims, without explicitly reducing reservations for SCs, STs, or other non-Muslim OBCs. But doesn’t this move by the ruling party effectively deny genuinely deserving OBCs their rightful quota? But does this practice uphold the spirit of the Constitution? Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination solely on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16(2) reiterates this in the context of public employment. So how do these state policies stand up to scrutiny? The answer is a legal tightrope walk. The courts, particularly in landmark judgments like Indra Sawhney (1992), have held that social and educational backwardness, not religion per se, can justify reservations. Yet, in practice, it often blurs the line between affirmative action and appeasement.
The Constitution originally pivoted from strict equality to a more nuanced concept of equity. This was to ensure that historically marginalized groups could gain a fairer share of opportunities. The Mandal Commission (1980), the Sachar Committee (2006), and the Misra Commission (2007) all emphasized the social and economic deprivation faced by Muslims, recommending quotas to uplift them. However, the focus was on backwardness, not religion as a blanket category. There’s a stark difference between targeted social justice measures and blanket religion-based reservations. Revanth Reddy’s audacious promise is not just a political stunt but a dangerous precedent. By advocating reservations solely on religious lines, he risks deepening social divides, betraying the secular fabric of the nation. When reservations are weaponized for electoral gains, it undermines the very purpose of affirmative action — which is to uplift the marginalized, not to pander to communal sentiments. Furthermore, the judiciary’s silence on this matter is deafening. The apex court’s reluctance to take a firm stance on these reservations, despite past rulings striking down religion-based quotas, signals an indifference that threatens to erode constitutional principles. The court’s failure to call out states that blatantly flout its own directives — like the 50% reservation cap set in Indra Sawhney — is a dereliction of its duty to uphold the Constitution.
Consider Telangana’s own legislative overreach, where it attempted to push the Muslim reservation quota to 12%, blatantly exceeding the 50% ceiling. That move remains in legal limbo, awaiting the Centre’s nod for inclusion in the Ninth Schedule, effectively putting it beyond judicial review. This is a cynical attempt to bypass the Constitution through legislative sleight-of-hand, yet the courts remain mute spectators. The central question remains: Can a secular democracy truly sustain religion-based quotas without unravelling its foundational principles? If backwardness is indeed the criterion, why not focus on caste-neutral affirmative action that addresses socio-economic deprivation across communities? Pandering to religious identities not only betrays the Constitution but also risks turning affirmative action into a political tool, devoid of its original purpose. Revanth Reddy’s brazen declarations, coupled with judicial inaction, could set a dangerous precedent. The judiciary must reclaim its role as the guardian of the Constitution. The time has come to draw a firm line between legitimate social justice measures and populist appeasement. Otherwise, India risks sliding into a quagmire where the Constitution is twisted to suit electoral compulsions, undermining the secular ethos that binds this diverse nation together.
