No Exceptional Circumstance In Bihar To Breach 50% Reservation Limit; Quota Merely Based On Population Proportion Impermissible : Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has struck down the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2023 and the Bihar Reservation (in Admission to Educational Institutions) Amendment Act, 2023 passed by the Bihar Legislature on 09.11.2023 for being unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.The amendments had enhanced the reservations for the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Extremely Backward Class (EBC) and Backward Class (BC) to 65% from the existing 50%. These amendments were challenged in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the petitioners on grounds of violating the fundamental right of equality of opportunity in public employment and admissions to educational institutions under the Constitution of India. The respondent/State claimed that the increase in reservations was done in pursuance of the Caste Survey conducted by it, whose report was published on 02.10.2023.The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar examined Articles 15(4) & 16 (4) of the Constitution and pronounced that the amendments violate these provisions. Article 15(4) empowers the State to make any special provision for the advancement of SC, ST and any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and Article 16 (4) provides that the State can reserve posts for any backward classes who are not adequately represented in the services of the State.The Court provided the following reasons for striking down the amendments as unconstitutional: (a) there is a ceiling limit of 50% for reservations (b) the reservation was based on mere proportion to the population of backward classes (proportionate reservation) (c) State/respondent did not conduct any analysis or in-depth study before enhancing reservations under the amendment acts Ceiling Limit of 50% in reservations The Court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court including Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992, M.R.Balaji vs. State of Mysore, 1962, M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2006 and Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar & Others, 2010, which laid down a ceiling of 50% for providing reservations. It noted that the decisions of the Apex Court make it clear that there should be a balance between the equality of opportunity available to citizens under Article 16(1) and the special provision for backward classes under Article 16(4). Further that Article 15(4) is akin to Article 16(4) and thus any reservations should be less than 50%. The High Court noted that only under limited circumstances, the ceiling of 50% could be breached. It referred to Indra Sawhney where the Supreme Court held that the 50% limit in the reservation can be exceeded only to fill unfilled vacancies in the previous years i.e. carry forward any unfilled vacancies of past years. Additionally, reservations could exceed the given limit in areas which are remote and whose population is not within the mainstream of national life. The Court held that the situation in Bihar does not disclose any extenuating circumstance to provide relaxation to the 50% limit. It said:“We do not find ourselves persuaded to hold the situation in the State of Bihar, especially looking at the Caste Survey, to be of such extenuating nature for reason of it being far flung and away from the mainstream of national life. The Caste Survey, on the contrary, definitely paints a different picture from what was argued, insofar as the adequate representation in public employment. The State of Bihar is neither a far flung or remote area nor is it out of the mainstream of national life making an overbreadth of the 50% limit an imperative measure.”Reservation based on mere proportion to the population of backward classes The Court considered that the enhancement of reservations in the amendment acts was done mechanically, by just taking into account the total population of the backward classes and the percentage of their representation in government services and educational institutions. It noted that the State only took into consideration the fact that the backward classes were a majority in the State and provided reservations proportionate to their population. The Court said:“The only consideration that weighed with the legislature was that the backward classes constitute the major part of the population and that their representation in the various services and educational institutions are lesser in proportion than the unreserved category of government employees bear with their total population.”The Court was of the view that providing proportionate reservation i.e. reservation based on the population of backward classes is violative of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. It held that for reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), the relevant factor to be taken into consideration is 'adequate representation' and not proportionate representation. It relied on...

No Exceptional Circumstance In Bihar To Breach 50% Reservation Limit; Quota Merely Based On Population Proportion Impermissible : Patna High Court

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags