Explainer | 50% Reservation Rule & Bihar Caste-Quota Law Judgment Of Patna High Court

Recently, the Patna High Court struck down the laws passed by the Bihar Legislative Assembly providing 65% reservation to the domiciles of Bihar belonging to Schedule Castes (SCs), Schedule Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in matters of public employment and admission to education institutions. The Court reasoned that the enhancement of reservations beyond the 50% is bad in law and goes against the principles of equality emanating from the Constitution. The decision of the Bihar Government to provide 65% reservations to certain reserved categories was based on the Caste Survey Report (2023) conducted in the State of Bihar. The Bihar Government's Caste Survey report states that the majority of the population within the State, belongs to the marginalized and deprived communities of Backward & Extremely Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, therefore, an attempt was made by the Bihar Government to provide reservation in proportion to the composition of the castes in the State. The Bihar Government's argument for breaching the 50% ceiling limit was based on the concept of 'proportionate representation' which means that reservation should be provided in proportion to the caste composition in the state. As per the caste survey report 85% of Bihar's total Population comprises of SCs, STs, and OBCs; therefore, the State Government justified 65% reservation provided to such categories. The legality of the Bihar Government's decision to extend the benefit of reservation beyond the 50% ceiling limit was challenged in the batch of petitions before the Patna High Court. The Petitioner's thrust of the argument opposing the Bihar Government's decision was based on the ratio laid down in the MR Balaji case wherein for the first time the Supreme Court innovated the 50% ceiling limit on providing reservation. The Court in MR Balaji held that reservation if provided above 50% would be violative of the right to equality. Later, the ratio of MR Balaji was approved by the Nine Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case. Reservation Could Be Extended Beyond 50% Ceiling Limit In Special Circumstances Though, the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney held that no reservation could extend beyond the ceiling limit of 50% it did recognize the need for exceptional treatment in special circumstances. The Court said that the limit need not be strictly adhered to while making provisions of reservation for inhabitants residing in far-flung areas or remote areas that remain out of the mainstream of national life and the conditions peculiar and characteristic to them,could lead to different treatment being meted out to them, even justifying a breach of the 50% rule. “While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people. It might happen that in far flung and remote areas the population inhabiting those areas might, on account of their being out of the mainstream of national life and in view of conditions peculiar to and characteristical to them, need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out.”, the Court observed in Para 810 of the Indra Sawhney case. Observing that the 50% ceiling limit could be breached in extraordinary circumstances, the Court in the Indra Sawhney Case noted that every excess over 50 percent will have to be justified on valid grounds to make such an extension in conformity with Articles 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution. “The adequacy of representation is not to be determined merely on the basis of the over all numerical strength of the backward classes in the services. For determining the adequacy, their representation at different levels of administration and in different grades has to be taken into consideration. It is the effective voice in the administration and not the total number which determines the adequacy of representation.”, the court observed in Indra Sawhney. Likewise, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar gave exceptional treatment to the Schedule Tribes while upholding the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act that reserved 80% of seats in the Panchayats for the people belonging to Schedule Tribes in Schedule Areas. However, the Supreme Court K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India clarified that exceptional considerations of crossing the ceiling limits cannot be invoked when the quantum of reservations is examined in favor of backward classes for the purpose of local bodies located in general areas. Why Bihar Government's Arguments Justifying Breach Of Ceiling Limit RejectedThe Bihar Government's argument for providing reservation beyond the ceiling limit was that since the backward classes constitute the major part of the population and their representation in the various services and educational...

Explainer | 50% Reservation Rule & Bihar Caste-Quota Law Judgment Of Patna High Court

Yash Mittal

Tags