The Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) has struck down portions 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, reservation law that raised aggregate reservation beyond the constitutional 50% ceiling, by essentially making Scheduled Castes (SC) reservation from 15% to 17% and Scheduled Tribes (ST) reservation from 3% to 7%, taking the total to 56%.
The Court held that population growth and data on inadequate representation do not, by themselves, establish extraordinary circumstances permitting reservation beyond 50%, and that separate Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation does not displace the backward-class ceiling. The Court reaffirmed that the ceiling preserves the balance between affirmative action and equality of opportunity. Departure requires an established case of extraordinary circumstances, and the rule applies equally to reservation in education and State employment.
The Court faulted the Commission’s population-based premise, and said that population growth and additions to SC/ST lists did not justify breaching the ceiling, and uneven access to reservation benefits might support internal reservation, but not an increase beyond 50%. The Court also cautioned that data on backwardness and inadequate representation alone cannot authorise reservation beyond 50%. The Court held that post-enactment letters to the National Commissions did not satisfy Articles 338(9) and 338A(9). However, it did not examine this challenge further because the impugned provisions already violated Articles 14, 15 and 16.
Briefly, the petitions challenged Karnataka’s 2022 reservation law, which increased Scheduled Caste (SC) reservation from 15% to 17% and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservation from 3% to 7% in educational institutions and State services. With the existing OBC reservation unchanged, the aggregate reservation rose from 50% to 56%. The petitioners contended that this breached the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity. The challenge included a public interest petition and a petition by civil engineering graduates seeking appointment as Assistant Engineers in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
The Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha observed that the 50% ceiling is a binding constitutional rule, not merely a guideline, although a departure is possible in extraordinary circumstances. Data showing backwardness or inadequate representation may support reservation within that ceiling, but does not, by itself, justify exceeding it. The Court found that the Nagamohan Das Commission’s reference proceeded on the erroneous premise that reservation should correspond to population. Article 16(4) requires adequate representation, not proportionate representation.
The Court found no extraordinary circumstances justifying the increase. Population growth, the inclusion of additional communities in the SC/ST lists, and the fact that reservation was below their population share were insufficient. The marginalisation of particular communities and the uneven reach of reservation benefits might present a case for internal reservation, but not for breaching the overall ceiling. The State had also not claimed that meaningful participation of any community was impossible without exceeding 50%.
The Court further observed that consultation with the National Commissions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was mandatory for this major policy decision. Letters sent after enactment did not constitute meaningful prior consultation, and the requirement was not confined to policies adversely affecting SCs or STs. However, the Court did not examine this ground further because it had already found the impugned provisions unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15 and 16.
Lastly, the Court asserted that reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) must preserve the balance between affirmative action for backward classes and equality of opportunity for all citizens. The 50% ceiling limits the State’s power, subject to an exception requiring an established case of extraordinary circumstances. Neither population-based claims nor quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation alone permit that ceiling to be crossed. The same ceiling applies to educational reservation, and the separate constitutional provision for EWS reservation does not remove the limit applicable to backward-class reservation.
