A recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court has created fresh controversy over reservations in higher educational institutions. A single-judge bench, in the case of Sabra Ahmad vs Uttar Pradesh, ruled that the four special medical colleges built in Jalaun, Saharanpur, Kannauj, and Ambedkar Nagar under the Scheduled Caste Special Component Plan cannot provide 70 per cent reservation for Scheduled Castes. A division bench of the court later upheld the judgment.
The matter has now reached the Supreme Court, which is set to consider whether colleges established under the Special Component Plan (SCP) are bound by the 50 per cent ceiling limit on reservations.
On the one hand, the high court ruling has placed the future of about 100 students in jeopardy. On the other hand, it has opened the door to a wider controversy, as states such as Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Kerala also have similar special colleges with more than 50 per cent SC/ST reservation. For example, Social Welfare Residential Government First Grade Colleges located in Haveri, Chamrajnagar, and Kodagu districts of Karnataka, as well as similar colleges in Chittoor and Krishna districts of Andhra Pradesh, have 100 per cent reservation for SCs and STs. Similarly, Telangana Social Welfare Residential Degree Colleges in Adilabad, Nizamabad, and Bhupalpally districts of Telangana also have more than 70 per cent reservation for SCs and STs. The Government Medical College (GMC), Palakkad, Kerala, has 72 per cent reservation for SCs and STs.
Therefore, this judgment carries wider political implications for the BJP, which is nearing its current term under Yogi Adityanath. The party already faced an electoral setback in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections over allegations of ending reservation and undermining the Constitution.
We argue that the Allahabad High Court erred in striking down the reservation policy of these four colleges by mechanically applying the 50 per cent ceiling limit set in the Indra Sawhney judgment. That ruling, however, explicitly allowed for breaching the ceiling limit in exceptional circumstances in pursuit of substantive equality. If not overturned, the Allahabad High Court judgment would have wide implications for welfare policies concerning SCs and polity, as the other high courts might pass similar orders.
The genesis of constitutional conflict
The Uttar Pradesh government established four special medical colleges under the SCP for SCs. The SCP came into existence in 1979 to give effect to Article 46, which directs that “the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.”
These colleges receive 70 percent of funds from the SCP, so they are required to provide 70 percent reservation for SC students. This provision was challenged in the Allahabad High Court eight years ago, and the matter is pending before a division bench of the court. Yet the single-judge bench has struck down government orders issued between 2006 and 2015 without being requested in the petition. When a matter is pending before the larger bench, the smaller bench cannot pass an order, as it amounts to judicial impropriety. Nevertheless, it directed the government to follow the Uttar Pradesh Reservation Act of 2006, which caps SC reservation at 21 per cent. On 4 September 2025, a division bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla ordered that already admitted SC students should be shifted to other medical colleges, leaving hundreds of students facing an uncertain academic future.
Also read: Indian police need urgent reforms. 2006 SC order yielded no results
The court’s fundamental misreading
The high court’s misinterpretation lies in treating these special institutions as ordinary educational establishments subject to general reservation frameworks. This mechanical jurisprudence ignores the foundational principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, which translates to ‘special provisions must prevail over general ones’. These colleges were not created as general institutions with reservations grafted onto them; they were conceived as specialised instruments of constitutional justice under Articles 15 and 46.
By adopting a literal interpretation, the court has rendered the transformative purpose of these institutions meaningless. This approach also violates Supreme Court rulings, which have emphasised that constitutional interpretation must account for legislative intent and constitutional vision, not merely textual literalism. The high court relied on textual literalism.
Constituent Assembly’s transformative vision
The debates of the Constituent Assembly reveal the profound intent behind provisions for the advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. S Nagappa, a member of the Constituent Assembly, articulated this vision with his statement that a specialised ministry be established under the minister from the same community, and the need for definite plans and schemes, with the allotment of 5 per cent of central revenues for such plans and schemes.
S Munniswamy Pillai, another Constituent Assembly member, echoed a similar vision, arguing that the SC/ST officer should review the progress of SC/ST after ten years, and upon inadequate progress, the reservation period should be prolonged rather than mechanically terminated.
This constitutional vision is crystallised into Article 46, which mandates that “the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections”. KM Munshi, the chief architect of fundamental rights, emphasised that Article 46 represented the Constitution’s commitment to social revolution—transforming India from a caste-ridden society into an egalitarian democracy. He viewed it not as charity but as a constitutional obligation to rectify historical injustices through affirmative state action.
Also read: No SC/ST groups will be excluded — how Supreme Court order treads sub-classification minefield
SCP’s role in Article 46
The SCP operationalised Article 46’s mandate by earmarking funds, specifically for Scheduled Caste development. Unlike general welfare schemes, the SCP represents targeted intervention to combat caste-based disadvantages and achieve substantive equality.
The special medical colleges, funded entirely through SC-specific allocations, embody this constitutional commitment. Not only Uttar Pradesh, but also Kerala has established a special medical college for SCs/STs using this fund. Therefore, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court would push the high courts of respective states to pass similar orders
The court’s order fundamentally misunderstands the constitutional doctrine of substantive equality. Even in Indra Sawhney, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the 50 per cent ceiling could be breached in exceptional circumstances. The establishment of special institutions using community-specific funds for historically marginalised groups represents precisely such exceptional circumstances.
The Constitution recognises that treating unequals equally violates provisions of equality guaranteed under Article 14. The Supreme Court has consistently held that affirmative action for disadvantaged groups is not anti-equality but pro-equality, as it seeks to level the playing field distorted by centuries of systematic exclusion.
Constitutional implications
The high court’s order creates a precarious situation where Scheduled Castes are effectively evicted from institutions built with their community’s allocated funds. This defeats the constitutional mandate under Article 46 and undermines the state’s authority to formulate special schemes for disadvantaged groups.
The court has converted SCP colleges into general institutions, even though their very purpose was distinct, serving as exclusive instruments of Scheduled Caste advancement. If general reservation caps were applied to SCP-funded institutions, the very rationale for their establishment would collapse.
The Constitution empowers the state to take affirmative measures for historically disadvantaged communities. The mechanical application of general ceilings to special institutions eviscerates this constitutional authority.
The SCP funding of educational institutions is a distinct category of institutions that need not be read as ordinary institutions. The Allahabad High Court has misinterpreted it, which needs to be corrected by the Supreme Court. However, the correct approach requires recognising that these institutions operate under a different constitutional paradigm, one of restorative justice and substantive equality rather than formal equality.
Arvind Kumar is a visiting lecturer in Politics & International Relations at the University of Hertfordshire, and an Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London. He tweets @arvind_kumar__.
Raja Chaudhary is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India. He holds an LLM degree in International Law from SOAS, University of London. Views are personal.
(Edited by Saptak Datta)