The Supreme Court of India on Friday delivered a significant directive concerning local body elections in Maharashtra, emphasizing that elections should proceed across the state while ensuring that the total reservation for scheduled castes (SCs), scheduled tribes (STs), and other backward classes (OBCs) does not exceed 50% in any local body where elections have yet to be notified. The order comes amid ongoing legal disputes and petitions challenging the state’s implementation of reservation policies and the timeline of local elections.

The order was passed by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. It came in response to a batch of petitions seeking enforcement of earlier Supreme Court orders mandating that elections to all local bodies in Maharashtra be completed by January 31. Among the petitions was a contempt petition filed by Rahul Ramesh Wagh, who alleged that the state government was violating the Supreme Court’s triple test laid down in 2021 for reservation in local bodies.

The triple test, established in a landmark 2021 judgment, required that states adhere to three key criteria before implementing OBC reservation in local body elections. First, a scientific study must be conducted to assess the population of OBCs in the relevant areas. Second, the state must determine the exact quantum of reservation applicable in each local body. Third, the total reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs must not exceed 50% of seats. The principle had its origin in the 2010 Constitution Bench ruling of K Krishnamurthi, which made it clear that over-representation of OBCs in local bodies would contravene the constitutional mandate of equitable representation.

In Maharashtra, the state government had constituted the Banthia Commission to implement the triple test. The commission conducted an empirical study in 2022 and recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in local bodies across the state. Additionally, it advised reducing the OBC reservation in tribal-dominated districts, where SC/ST reservation was already high, to ensure that the total reservation remained within the 50% limit. Despite these measures, the Banthia Commission’s recommendations have been challenged from multiple quarters. A section of OBC leaders contended that the commission underrepresented OBCs in some areas, while other parties argued that certain local bodies would exceed the 50% ceiling if the recommendations were implemented as-is.

The Supreme Court’s latest order categorizes local bodies in Maharashtra into two groups: those where elections have already been notified and those where elections are yet to be scheduled. According to the state election commission (MSEC), represented before the court by senior advocate Balbir Singh, elections for 246 municipal councils and 42 Nagar Panchayats are set to take place on December 2. Among these, the total reservation in 40 municipal councils and 17 Nagar Panchayats exceeds the 50% threshold.

For these local bodies, the bench ruled that elections may proceed as per the notified schedule. However, it clarified that the results in the councils and Panchayats exceeding the 50% reservation limit will be subject to the outcome of the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings. This ensures that while democratic processes are not unduly stalled, constitutional mandates regarding reservation are preserved.

In the second category, which includes 336 Panchayat Samitis, 32 Zila Parishads, and 29 municipal corporations, elections have not yet been notified. The MSEC informed the court that it had not yet completed the process of identifying which specific seats might breach the 50% reservation limit. Regarding municipal corporations, the commission noted that only two corporations were likely to exceed the threshold. The court allowed elections for all 29 municipal corporations but clarified that the results would be provisional and subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings, which include challenges to the Banthia Commission’s methodology and findings.

The court further instructed that elections be held in all Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads where reservation does not exceed 50%. It directed that the petitions be listed before a three-judge bench on January 21, 2026, to ensure that the matter is addressed comprehensively. To facilitate this, advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari and Amol Karande were appointed to compile all relevant documents and data for the next hearing by January 9.

During the proceedings, senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rahul Ramesh Wagh, highlighted the urgency of holding local body elections in Maharashtra, noting that many local bodies had remained vacant for years. He emphasized that, under the current administrative framework, the state exercises direct control over these bodies, and prolonged vacancies undermine local governance and service delivery. The Supreme Court acknowledged this concern, emphasizing that elections must proceed wherever the 50% reservation ceiling is not breached. However, the bench refrained from setting a strict timeline for the completion of elections in all local bodies, noting that doing so could complicate the situation further.

The Supreme Court’s order underscores the delicate balance between adhering to constitutional principles and ensuring functional local governance. While the court has consistently enforced the 50% cap on total reservation, it has also recognized the practical necessity of holding elections to prevent administrative stagnation. By allowing elections to proceed in certain areas while reserving the right to review results or decisions for those exceeding the 50% threshold, the court has sought to uphold both democratic and constitutional imperatives.

The petitions currently before the Supreme Court primarily challenge the Banthia Commission’s recommendations for allegedly providing over-representation to OBCs. Simultaneously, a section of OBC leaders, led by senior advocate Indira Jaising, has contended that the commission’s methodology failed to effectively account for OBC populations, thereby under-representing them in certain areas. The court described the matter as “contentious” and noted that it had not yet fully examined the commission’s report, reflecting the complexity of balancing empirical data, constitutional directives, and social equity.

The Maharashtra state election scenario reflects broader challenges in India’s governance framework, particularly concerning reservation in local bodies. While reservation is intended to provide historically marginalized communities with fair representation, its implementation must carefully balance constitutional limits with demographic realities. Overstepping the 50% cap could undermine the legal framework, while under-representation can perpetuate social inequities. The Supreme Court’s interventions serve as a mechanism to ensure that states adhere to this delicate balance.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s order on December 28, 2025, reiterates the principle that local body elections in Maharashtra must proceed without violating the constitutional ceiling of 50% total reservation. Elections will be held immediately in notified bodies where the reservation limit is within permissible bounds, while those exceeding the threshold will remain provisional pending final judicial review. The court’s approach emphasizes that democratic processes and constitutional compliance are not mutually exclusive but must be harmonized to strengthen governance at the grassroots level. By scheduling a detailed hearing in January and appointing advocates to compile relevant documentation, the Supreme Court has ensured that the issue will be addressed systematically, providing clarity for both the state government and citizens awaiting functional local governance.

This order also underscores the continuing relevance of the 2010 K Krishnamurthi judgment and the 2021 triple test framework, reinforcing that any expansion of OBC reservation must be backed by empirical studies, proper assessment of quotas, and strict adherence to the 50% reservation ceiling. As Maharashtra prepares for the upcoming local elections, the Supreme Court’s guidance seeks to ensure fairness, legality, and timely functioning of local administrative institutions, safeguarding both democratic representation and constitutional mandates.