Reservation cannot be proportionate to population of castes, says Karnataka High Court

The High Court of Karnataka on Monday said that the Constitution mandates “adequate representation”, not “proportionate representation”, while observing that “the fundamental premise that reservation for backward classes must be in proportion to their population is erroneous.”

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha made these observations in its judgment striking down the law that had increased reservation from 15% to 17% for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and from 3% to 7% for Scheduled Tribes (STs), resulting in a breach of the 50% ceiling on total reservations for SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes.

State’s argument

The State government had argued that the increase in reservation for SCs and STs was justified as their population had grown to 24.1% while reservation remained static at 18%.

Citing the 2020 report of the H.N. Nagamohan Das Commission, headed by retired High Court judge H.N. Nagamohan Das, the government claimed that when reservation for SCs was fixed at 15% and for STs at 3%, their share in Karnataka’s population was about 13% and 0.8%, respectively. It argued that by 2011, the SC population had increased to 17.15% and the ST population to 6.95%, taking their combined share to 24.10%, while reservation for these communities remained unchanged at 18%.

‘Fundamentally flawed’

However, the Bench found this argument fundamentally flawed. “Adequate representation cannot be read as proportionate representation,” the Bench said, relying on judgments of the Supreme Court. The Bench observed that the principle of proportionate representation is accepted only under Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution for Lok Sabha and State legislature seats, and not under Article 16(4).

The Bench warned that accepting population as the basis for reservation would be “destructive of the principle of equality”. Referring to the argument of the State’s counsel that over 90% of Karnataka’s population belongs to SCs, STs and OBCs, and therefore reservation should be to the extent of their population, the Bench said: “To accept the said contention would be destructive of the principle of equality enshrined under the Constitution.”

Not in isolation

“The demographic changes in respect of a single community, or a class of communities, cannot be examined in isolation for determining whether there are extraordinary circumstances which present a compelling case for breaching the 50% rule. It is relevant to examine the demographic changes not only of the backward classes, but also of the forward classes, to determine the question of the adequacy of representation of any one class in the services of the State, or of its share of seats in educational institutions,” the Bench said.

Further, the Bench said that “the very approach that, once a class has been identified as a backward class, the reservation in its favour is required to be in proportion to its population is debilitating to the rule of equality, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”

The Bench also said that the State had not pointed to any extraordinary circumstance warranting reservation beyond the 50% ceiling. It also pointed out that the State had not complied with the mandatory requirement of consulting the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes before enacting the law increasing the reservation quota.