Recently, the Patna High Court struck down laws passed by the Bihar Legislative Assembly that provided for 65 percent reservation for Bihar's Schedule Castes (SC), Schedule Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in public affairs in Bihar starting work and admission to educational institutions. The court argued that increasing reservations beyond 50 percent is against the law and goes against the principles of equality arising from the constitution.
The Bihar government's decision to give 65% reservations to certain reserved classes was based on the Caste Survey Report (2023) conducted in the state of Bihar. The Caste Survey Report of the Government of Bihar states that most of the state's population belongs to marginalized and minority communities of backward and extremely backward classes, scheduled castes, and tribes, therefore the government of Bihar has tried to make reservation in proportion to the caste composition of the state.
The Bihar government's argument for going beyond the 50% ceiling was based on the concept of "proportional representation", meaning that reservation should be made in proportion to the caste composition of the state. According to the Caste Survey report, 85% of the total population of Bihar consists of SCs, STs and OBCs; therefore, the state government introduced 65% reservation for such categories.
The legality of the Bihar government's decision to extend the reserve benefit beyond the 50 percent ceiling was challenged in petitions filed in the Patna High Court. The 50% ceiling was introduced by the Supreme Court in its landmark 1992 decision in Indra Sawhney v Union of India in order to ensure “efficiency” in administration. In Indra Sawhney, the Supreme Court said that no reservation should exceed the 50% ceiling, recognized the need for exceptional treatment in special circumstances. The 6-3 majority verdict that upheld the 27% quota for socially and economically backward classes (SEBC) set two important precedents — first, it said that the criteria to qualify for reservation is “social and educational backwardness”; second, it reiterated the 50% limit to vertical quotas that the court had laid down in earlier judgments (M R Balaji v State of Mysore, 1963, and Devadasan v Union of India, 1964). The 50% limit would apply unless in “exceptional circumstances”, the court said. The court observed that the limit should not be strictly adhered to when reservations are made to marginal or fringe populations who are outside the mainstream of national life and whose strange and peculiar circumstances may lead to differential treatment that even warrants a violation of the 50 percent rule.
Later, In Janhit Abhiyan Vs. The Constitution Bench of the Union of India, while upholding the EWS reservation, said that the 50% ceiling was not an inflexible rule and that it applied only to SC/ST/OBC reservations and not to the EWS quota. “Reservations to the economically weaker sections of citizens up to a maximum of 10% in addition to the existing reservations do not lead to violation of the essential features of the Constitution and do not harm the basic structure of the Constitution of the country of India due to violation of the ceiling of 50%,” the court observed in the EWS case.
Submitted by
SURENDRA VENKAT, 4TH YEAR, BA LLB Hons, Vignan Institute of law
VASANTHI DASINENI,4TH YEAR, BA LLB Hons, Vignan Institute of law
CHAGAM RAGHAVI, 4TH YEAR, BBA LLB Hons, Vignan Institute of law