Karnataka High Court strikes down law to increase reservation for SCs/STs, declares it unconstitutional

In a major blow to the State government, the High Court of Karnataka on Monday struck down the law to increase reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) beyond the 50% ceiling, holding that the enhancement was “constitutionally impermissible.”

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha declared Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 2022 ultra vires the Constitution and struck down these two provisions.

During Bommai regime

The Act, which came into force retrospectively from November 1, 2022, during the previous BJP government under Basavaraj Bommai, had increased reservation for SCs from 15% to 17% and for STs from 3% to 7%. Since the 32% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) remained unchanged, the aggregate reservation in the State rose from 50% to 56%, breaching the judicially established 50% ceiling laid down by the Supreme Court in the 1992 case of Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) and subsequently reaffirmed in numerous decisions.

The Bench delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions, including a public interest litigation filed by social worker Mahendra Kumar Mitra and a petition by civil engineering graduates Sagar H.R and others, who had challenged the reservation in recruitment to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) based on increased reservation quota.

The 50% principle

The main focus of the Bench’s judgment was on the question of whether the State could exceed the 50% limit for reservation. The Bench, in its 170-page judgment, extensively relying on the apex court’s findings on ceiling for reservations, concluded that the 50% limit is not a mere rule of prudence but a binding constitutional principle that embodies the balance between equality of opportunity and affirmative action.

“The ceiling limit of 50% has to be understood as circumscribing the power of the State to provide for reservation within the said parameters, notwithstanding the numerical strength of the backward classes,” the Bench observed.

State’s argument

The Bench rejected the State’s argument that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), had obliterated the 50% rule. The Bench clarified that the EWS quota is carved out from the general merit pool and does not permit the State to expand reservation for backward classes beyond the ceiling.