Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Fifty per cent ceiling isn’t absolute; EWS reservation has opened door to higher limits

Fifty per cent ceiling isn’t absolute; EWS reservation has opened door to higher limits

In the backdrop of the High Court and the Supreme Court rejecting the Telangana government's 42 per cent BC reservation Bill, citing a 50% ceiling on reservations, the question over the 10% EWS quota arises again. It seems strange considering how the framers of the Constitution fixed social disadvantage as the only basis for reservation and rejected efforts to introduce economic criteria. On the judicial front, the courts have enforced a 50% ceiling for BC, SC, and ST quotas and rejected the Telangana government's move, among others, but they don't apply the same yardstick when it comes to the EWS quota. How are such apparently paradoxical 'facts' allowed under our constitutional interpretation?

— K Ramasubramanian, Mandaiveli, Chennai

The 50% reservation ceiling, fixed as the maximum permissible limit by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case, is not an inflexible limit — it is judge-made law. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced an additional 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), has effectively breached that ceiling. In Tamil Nadu, the total reservation stands at 69%, and the challenge against it is still pending before the Supreme Court.

With a nationwide caste census promised and data collection underway, there will inevitably be renewed demands for increasing quotas across various sections. Therefore, there is no imminent threat to the continuation or even the expansion of higher reservation percentages. The Telangana case has also not yet reached finality. The broader landscape of reservation policy is evolving, and the courts are increasingly taking into account the constitutional amendments and the larger political and social context.

Unregistered assn cannot legally disconnect water or impose fines on flat owners

I live in a 24-flat (G+3) apartment complex undergoing civil, painting, and plumbing work. An unregistered apartment association had earlier assured owners that any structural repairs following column inspections would be covered by it. Based on this, we permitted inspection-related breakages. Later, the association changed its stance and told each owner to handle and fund their own repairs.

Since then, I’ve faced harassment while completing the work. The person in charge cut off our internal water supply, leaving us dependent on a hosepipe available for only two hours daily. He also threatens fines until repairs are done.

The association is unregistered, has no bylaws, and is run by one individual without voting or meetings. There’s no financial transparency despite the large renovation funds collected. Most owners live elsewhere, making collective action difficult.

What legal remedies do I have? Can such an association cut essential services or levy fines?

-- Krithika Nagarajan

Since your complex has 24 units and 24 owners, your association must be registered. An unregistered association cannot take any valid decisions; all such actions are legally invalid. Even under the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, a registered body has no power to disconnect essential services like water.

You can take legal action against those involved through civil, criminal, or constitutional remedies before the appropriate forums.