INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Karnataka, in a Division Bench judgment, struck down 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, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Act had increased reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) from 15% to 17% and for Scheduled Tribes (STs) from 3% to 7% in educational institutions and in State services. The Court held that the increase took the overall reservation in the State to 56%, which breached the 50% ceiling without showing any extraordinary circumstances to justify the same.
The State argued that the 50% rule stood obliterated by the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, that the Act rested on quantifiable data collected by experts. The petitioners argued that the 50% rule was binding and the adequacy of representation was never tested against other communities. They contended the State ought to have consulted with the National Commissions for SCs and STs. The Court ruled in favour of the petitioners and allowed the petitions.
BACKGROUND
In the erstwhile State of Mysore, reservation for SCs and STs was tentatively fixed at 15% and 3% in 1958 and the percentages never changed. Along with 32% for the other backward classes (OBC), the total reservation in Karnataka stood at 50%. In 2020, the State-appointed Commission headed by Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das (Retd.) submitted its report recommending reservation of 17% for SCs and 7% for STs. The Act took force from 01.11.2022 and took the aggregate reservation to 56%, leaving only 44% for general merit. The Challenge impugning Sections 3 and 4 of the Act was brought through multiple writ petitions led by a PIL filed by Mr Mahendra Kumar Mitra and a petition filed by civil engineering graduates. This judgment was limited to determining the constitutional validity of the Act.
KEY POINTS
- The High Court struck down Sections 3 and 4 of the Act as it takes the aggregate reservation beyond 50% which is violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
- It was held that the 50% ceiling is a firm rule of equality and not a mere rule of prudence and an exception can be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.
- The Court clarified that the 103rd Amendment did not obliterate the 50% rule as EWS reservation is carved out of the pool meant for general merit candidates.
- It was reiterated that Article 16(4) requires adequate representation and not proportionate representation. The Court held that Nagamohan Das Commission erred by treating population proportion as the sole test for adequacy.
- It was reaffirmed that consultation with National Commissions for SCs and STs under Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) on major policy decisions is mandatory.
ANALYSIS
The judgment reaffirms that the 50% ceiling is part of the balance struck within the equality clauses. Referring to Dr. Ambedkar’s speech in the Constituent Assembly, the Court noted that reservation was meant to be confined to a minority of seats, so that equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is not defeated. Relying on Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], the Court held that the ceiling is a strict rule. It noted that breaching this “Goldilocks solution” leads to reverse discrimination and transforms equal protection to caste-based quotas. The exception allowing a departure is confined to far-flung or isolated communities completely cut off from national mainstream life.
On the 103rd Amendment, the Court relied on Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India [(2023) 5 SCC 1], where the Supreme Court held that its observations on the 50% ceiling were made in the context of Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) and could not be stretched to EWS reservation as the latter is distinctively for general merit. The Court reasoned that the ceiling protects general merit candidates.
The Court found that the entire exercise was built on population. Relying on Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil and State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh [(2025) 1 SCC 1], it was held that adequate representation is not proportionate representation. It also noted that adequacy is relative and requires comparison with the representation of other classes; which neither report did. The Court added that the State was unable to establish an extraordinary circumstance. Notably, the Court observed that the findings about marginalised communities within the SCs and STs may present a case for internal reservation but not for breaching the ceiling. The Court held that consultation with National Commissions under Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) is mandatory and must precede the decision.
CONCLUSION
The High Court concluded that increasing SC and ST reservation beyond the aggregate 50% ceiling without an extraordinary circumstance violates the equality guarantee under Articles 14, 15 and 16. The decision leaves the State free to address inadequate representation within the 50% limit, including through internal reservation, but not by increasing the overall quota.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: T. R. AISIRI RAO
