The Karnataka High Court struck down a state law that increased reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, ruling it unconstitutional for breaching the fifty percent quota ceiling. The court cited the 1992 Supreme Court mandate and noted the lack of prior consultation with national commissions.
The Karnataka High Court has struck down the state government’s decision to increase reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), ruling that the enhanced quota breached the 50% reservation ceiling. The verdict is a major development in Karnataka’s reservation debate, with potential implications for government recruitment and admissions to educational institutions.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K S Hemalekha ruled that provisions 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, were unconstitutional to the extent that they pushed the overall reservation beyond the permissible limit.
The law, enacted during the tenure of the previous BJP government led by then chief minister Basavaraj Bommai, raised the SC quota from 15% to 17% and the ST quota from 3% to 7%. This took the combined reservation for SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from 50% to 56%.
The court held that the enhanced provisions violated constitutional guarantees of equality. The judgment followed petitions challenging the validity of the legislation.
Why The Karnataka High Court Rejected The Enhanced Quota
The bench struck down Section 3 of the Act, which provided for the increased reservation in educational institutions, saying it violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It also invalidated Section 4, which dealt with reservation in state government appointments, citing Articles 14 and 16.
The court relied on the 1992 Supreme Court judgment in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, which established the general 50% ceiling on reservations. While exceptions may be possible in extraordinary circumstances, the court said a state’s assessment of inadequate representation alone does not justify crossing that limit.
The judges also raised concerns about the consultation process. The state was required to consult the National Commissions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on major policy matters affecting these communities. According to the court, consultation must be meaningful and take place before a decision is made, rather than after legislation has already been enacted.
The petitions challenging the law were filed by Mahendra Kumar Mitra and a group of civil engineering graduates who had applied for government employment.
Karnataka Government Weighs Legal Options After Verdict
The ruling has prompted the state government to consider its next steps. Deputy Chief Minister G Parameshwara said the judgment had serious implications for social justice, educational opportunities and public employment in Karnataka. He indicated that the government would examine available legal remedies, including an appeal before the Supreme Court.
“We respect the judiciary and the constitutional framework within which it operates,” Parameshwara said, while criticising the previous BJP government and the Centre over the handling of the reservation issue.
He urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Union government to review the 50% reservation ceiling and consider constitutional and legislative measures, including Karnataka’s request to include the law in the Ninth Schedule.
“Our demand is not for reservation as a symbolic announcement. Our demand is for reservation that is legally sustainable, socially meaningful and effectively implemented,” he said.
The state government’s next move could determine how the issue unfolds, particularly for candidates awaiting recruitment and students seeking admission under the enhanced quota provisions.
For now, the High Court’s ruling has reopened a contentious debate over affirmative action, constitutional equality and the legal limits on reservation. Any appeal or further legislative move will need to address the court’s findings on both the 50% ceiling and the requirement for prior consultation with the national commissions.