In a week marked by passionate calls for equity and urgent legal action, the issue of reservation—long a cornerstone of India’s social justice framework—has once again taken center stage in two southern states. On December 6, 2025, leaders and advocates in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh pressed for stronger legal backing and expanded access to reservation, underscoring both the challenges and the evolving landscape of affirmative action in India.
In Karnataka, former Member of Parliament and Valmiki Community Forum president V. S. Ugrappa delivered a forceful appeal to the state government, demanding immediate legal amendments to safeguard the reservation hike previously introduced by the Basavaraj Bommai-led BJP government. According to ETV Bharat, Ugrappa did not mince words as he addressed reporters in Bengaluru, warning that unless the state took swift action to protect the increased quotas—especially by placing them under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution—marginalized communities might be compelled to launch widespread protests.
The controversy stems from the recent decision by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal to set aside the reservation increase, a move that is now under a stay order in the High Court. This legal limbo has left Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities in a state of uncertainty regarding their rights and opportunities. As Ugrappa pointed out, "About 40 crore SC, ST citizens live in the country. Their rights are being ignored by governments and courts. Their livelihoods are at stake." The gravity of his words was hard to miss.
Ugrappa drew a pointed comparison to neighboring Tamil Nadu, which has managed to maintain a 69 percent reservation policy by anchoring it in the Ninth Schedule—a constitutional provision that shields certain laws from judicial review. "Our state moved to 56 percent reservation, but did not place it under the Ninth Schedule. That is why we are facing this situation today," he explained, adding that the 1992 Indra Sawhney Supreme Court judgment permits such an increase if handled correctly. For Ugrappa, the path forward is clear: Karnataka must follow Tamil Nadu’s example to ensure legal protection for its reservation policies.
He did not stop at legal technicalities. Ugrappa called on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D. K. Shivakumar to convene an all-party meeting and enact a robust law during the upcoming Belagavi legislative session. He insisted, "Reservation is not charity. It is a right of marginalised communities. But today, we are being denied even basic opportunities."
According to ETV Bharat, Ugrappa also highlighted how previous governments had failed to secure adequate reservation, even though the SC/ST Sub-Plan Act (SCP/TSP)—enacted during Siddaramaiah’s earlier term—offered a foundation for targeted budget allocations. He urged the formation of a delegation to meet with the Prime Minister, pressing for the inclusion of Karnataka’s reservation provisions under the Ninth Schedule at the national level.
The debate over reservation is not limited to numbers and legal clauses. Ugrappa weighed in on the ongoing recommendation to include the Kuruba community under the ST category, emphasizing that any such move must be grounded in rigorous anthropological research. "I am not against anyone. But when new groups are added, the existing reservation share must also be protected," he said. The stakes are high: the ongoing court cases have brought government recruitment to a standstill, affecting thousands of aspiring candidates from marginalized backgrounds.
Ugrappa’s final warning was unmistakable: "If corrective action is not taken, the SC, ST, and OBC communities will have no choice but to come to the streets." He urged the government to engage competent legal experts to defend the reservation policy in court, lamenting that silence from elected representatives was only deepening the crisis.
Meanwhile, in Andhra Pradesh, the push for reservation took a different but equally significant turn. Senior advocate Thota Sunitha filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking 33 percent reservation for women advocates in the upcoming elections of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association. As reported by ETV Bharat, Sunitha’s petition named the association’s president, secretary, and executive committee members as respondents, arguing that the 106th Constitutional Amendment mandates one-third reservation for women from local bodies up to Parliament.
Sunitha’s legal challenge also drew strength from a recent Supreme Court directive. In May 2024, the Supreme Court ordered all Supreme Court Bar and Advocates’ Associations to implement one-third reservation for women, setting a precedent that, according to Sunitha, should be followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association as well. Justice Gannamaneni Rama Krishna Prasad admitted the petition and promptly issued notices to the association on December 6, 2025. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on December 10, 2025, with Sunitha appearing in person as the petitioner.
These parallel developments in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh highlight the ongoing complexities and contestations around reservation in India. In Karnataka, the debate revolves around the quantum of reservation and its constitutional protection, while in Andhra Pradesh, the focus is on gender representation within the legal profession. Both cases, however, underscore a broader truth: reservation remains a deeply contested and evolving issue, with real consequences for millions of Indians seeking fair access to opportunities.
The legal and political stakes could hardly be higher. In Karnataka, the reservation hike implemented by the previous BJP government was initially seen as a significant step forward for marginalized communities, but its legal vulnerability has exposed the fragility of policy changes not anchored in constitutional safeguards. Ugrappa’s call for an all-party consensus and a constitutional amendment reflects a growing recognition that piecemeal or temporary fixes are unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny or political opposition.
At the same time, the Andhra Pradesh case signals a new front in the reservation debate—one that centers on gender equity in professional spaces. Sunitha’s invocation of both the 106th Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court’s own directives reveals how legal activism and judicial pronouncements are shaping the contours of affirmative action beyond traditional caste-based frameworks.
For many observers, these developments are a reminder that the promise of reservation—as a tool for social justice and inclusion—remains both vital and unfinished. The legal wrangling, political maneuvering, and grassroots advocacy unfolding in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh are not just local stories; they reflect broader questions about how India will navigate the demands of equity, representation, and constitutional fidelity in the years ahead.
As the courts deliberate and governments weigh their next moves, the voices of advocates like Ugrappa and Sunitha serve as a potent reminder: for millions, reservation is not merely a policy debate—it is a matter of rights, recognition, and the hope for a more just society.
