'50% Ceiling Breached' : Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Law Raising SC/ST Reservation In Education & Govt Jobs

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha held that the legislation—which pushed the aggregate reservation in the State from 50% to 56%—violates Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court ruled that the 50% ceiling limit is a binding rule, and that a mere increase in population or proportional representation does not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" required to breach this constitutional threshold.

The ceiling of 50% reservation not 'elastic'

Referring to the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), and other Supreme Court rulings, the High Court said, “In view of the authoritative decision of the Bench of nine Judges in Indra Sawhney (supra), the ceiling of 50% on reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution is firmly established. The language of the judgment makes it clear that this is not an elastic limit to be assessed on a case-to-case basis, or one dependent on the population of the backward classes or the extent of their backwardness.”

“Although the Supreme Court left room for an exception in extraordinary situations, this does not detract from the fact that it deliberated on, and fixed, a firm limit in view of the balance required to be struck in the scheme of the equality clauses,” it further observed.

The 50% ceiling rule— which emerged from the need to read the affirmative actions under Articles 16(4), 46 and 335 harmoniously with Article 14, rather than as an exception that overrules it— strikes a balance between the need to make special provisions for the advancement of the weaker sections of society and the need to ensure that other communities are not unduly constrained.

“The scheme of these clauses must be read with Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. Once it is accepted that clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution cannot be construed as an exception to clause (1) of that Article, it is imperative to strike a balance in applying the said clauses. The 50% ceiling rule is the result of striking that balance,” the Court said.

EWS quota does not justify breaching 50% ceiling

The Court rejected the State's argument that the 50% ceiling rule “no longer holds good” because it has already been breached by the additional 10% EWS reservation in educational institutions and appointments in State services.

“In other words, the argument is that, since the State is now enabled to make reservation for the upliftment of the EWS, the backward classes ought to have a larger share, and the State can further reduce the seats and appointments available to candidates on the basis of general merit. This would clearly fall foul of the equality clauses and the very concept of balance which the Supreme Court has endeavoured to strike by fixing the ceiling limit of 50%,” the High Court said.

Placing reliance on the Constitutional Bench ruling in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), the High Court added, “As is apparent from the above, the Supreme Court observed that the prescription of the ceiling limit of 50% is 'apparently for the benefit of general merit candidates' and, thus, the reservation for the EWS, to the maximum extent of 10%, is carved out from the pool otherwise available to them. The same, therefore, cannot give rise to any legitimate grievance on the part of candidates belonging to the backward classes, as the limit of reservation in their favour is not affected.”

Numerical strength of a class no 'extraordinary ground' to breach of 50% limit

The High Court held that the mere collection of data reflecting social backwardness and inadequacy of representation among SCs and STs is insufficient to carve out an exception to the 50% cap, instead, “extraordinary circumstances” must be shown.

The Court further noted that the terms of reference of the Nagamohan Das Commission— on whose report, the legislation was brought out by the State— was to examine whether reservation limit for the SCs and STs could be enhanced proportionally, and not to examine whether “compelling extraordinary circumstances” existed for exceeding the 50% limit for reservations. However, this cannot be a ground to enhance the aggregate reservation beyond 50%, the Court held.

“In our view, 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 Court observed.

It noted, “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. Thus, it would be difficult to accept that the proportion of a class to the population of the State could, by itself, be a ground for exceeding the 50% limit.”

Proportional vs adequate representation

The High Court found the fundamental premise that the reservation for backward classes must be in proportion to their population erroneous, as Article 16(4) of the Constitution provides for “adequate representation” and not “proportionate representation”.

“The Constitution guarantees equality, but the guarantee would be illusory if provisions were not made to enable the excluded communities to break the barrier and join the administration of the State. It was never contemplated that clause (4) of Article 16 would be worked in a manner that would provide for proportionate representation in employment, as that has the propensity to prove divisive. And, that would run counter to the constitutional guarantees,” the Court said, while placing reliance on the Constituent Assembly debates.

“In Indra Sawhney (supra), the Supreme Court in unambiguous terms held that the expression 'adequate representation', as used in clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution, cannot be read as 'proportionate representation',” the Court said.

To assess whether a community or caste has been adequately represented, the Bench said that a comparison between its representation and that of other classes is necessary. However, such comparison was absent in the Report.

“Thus, 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 the seats in educational institutions,” the Court said.

It further observed, “It is also material to note that the Nagamohan Das Commission had not accepted the demand that any increase in the reservation for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes be offset by reducing the reservation in favour of the other backward classes, on the ground that the reservation in favour of the other backward classes was itself less than their proportion of the population. This itself illustrates that a claim for reservation founded on the proportion of population, if accepted for one class, would equally be made by every other backward class.”

A lack of percolation of reservation benefits to marginalised communities as well as an increase in population of SCs and STs on account of inclusion of other communities and castes in their list would also not qualify as “extraordinary circumstance” warranting the breach of 50% rule, the High Court said.

What constitutes “Extraordinary Circumstances”?

The High Court said that the extraordinary circumstance would arise only if there remained no possibility for the left-out communities to have any meaningful participation unless the 50% reservation limit was exceeded.

“It is not the State's case that, but for the increase in reservation beyond 50%, there is no possibility for a community or caste to have any real participation in the services of the State or to have a 'look in' in the administration,” the High Court observed.

“A subjective opinion that the reservation in favour of any backward class should be increased marginally, by a few percentage points on the basis that the reservation provided is less than the proportion of their population, would be wholly inadequate to justify exceeding the 50% limit,” the Court said.

Mandatory consultation with National Commissions

The High Court also ruled that the State failed to consult the National Commissions for the SCs and STs before enacting the reservation policies, which is a mandatory requirement under the Constitution.

For context, Articles 338(9) and 338A (9) of the Constitution mandate the Union and every State Government to consult the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, respectively, on all major policy matters affecting the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be.

“Undoubtedly, the provision of reservation in pursuance of the State's policy is a major policy matter. Thus, notwithstanding the State's legislative competence to enact the Act, it was mandatory for the State Government to consult the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. Merely writing a letter after enacting the Act cannot be considered as consultation as required under clause (9) of Article 338 and clause (9) of Article 338A of the Constitution,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the High Court struck down Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which had increased the reservation quota for SCs and STs in educational institutions and appointments in the State services, as unconstitutional.

Background

The reservation in the erstwhile State of Mysore and Karnataka for SCs and STs had stood at 15% and 3% respectively, via a government order dated February 4, 1958. The aggregate reservation thus stood at 50%, with 32% reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). In 2019, the State appointed Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das Commission to procure empirical data for considering the demand for an increase in the reservation in favour of SCs and STs. The committee submitted its report in 2020, recommending that the reservation for SCs be increased to 17% and for STs to 7%.

Following this, a High-Level Committee chaired by Justice Subhash B. Adi was constituted in 2021, focusing on the steps to implement the Nagamohan Das report recommendations. The committee submitted its findings in 2022.

In 2022, the Governor promulgated the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Ordinance, 2022. Subsequently, it was replaced by the impugned Act on January 12, 2023, which came into effect retrospectively from November 1, 2022. This legislation pushed the total reservation from 50% to 56% (17% for SCs, 7% for STs, and 32% for OBCs).