Recently, the Patna High Court in Gaurav Kumar and Others vs State of Bihar and Ors. struck down the Bihar government’s decision to increase the reservation quota from 50% to 65% in the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2023 and the Bihar Reservation (in Admission to Educational Institutions) Amendment Act, 2023.
The Bihar government’s decision to increase reservation was primarily based on the caste survey indicating a majority of the population belongs to marginalized communities.
Reservations have evolved in India from pre-independence British colonial administrations and princely states to raise the standards of certain backward classes. After independence, Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India laid down measures for reservations for the backward classes, where, Article 15(4) talks about educational institutions, though the word “adequate” is not used, however in Article 16(4), the provision reserves adequate representation and empowers the state to provide reservation in the public employment for any backward class that is inadequately represented.
For decades, reservations have remained a disputative subject, where, the principle of a 50% limit on reservation is based on the idea of balancing the demand for social equity without undermining the principles of merit and equity as well as maintaining equal rights for all the citizens.
In M. R. Balaji vs State of Mysore (1963), it was held that 68% reservation in educational institutions was excessive and violative of Article 15(4). The Court also stressed that the rationality and proportionality of preference shall be exercised by the State in performing its affirmative action in accordance with the constitutional obligation to meet the needs of the deserving persons without disregarding the needs of the larger society.
Therefore, the SC while deciding T. Devadasan vs Union of India supported the 50% cap in reservation in the public sector for jobs and underlined the necessity to protect the equality of opportunities for all citizens.
The SC, in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992), also known as the Mandal Commission’s case, argued that “extraordinary situations,” that is, special circumstances surrounding certain groups of people particularly in certain parts of the world may require different treatment. Therefore, it endorsed the policy decision to go ahead with the Mandal Commission recommendation for a 27% reservation for the backward classes with a total ceiling on the quotas of 50%, and also clarified that “adequate representation,” as envisaged in Article 16(4), should not be construed as “proportional representation.”
While accepting that the proportion of the backward classes to the total population remains relevant, the Court reiterated that the real spirit of the Article is to ensure equality and equal opportunity for all citizens.
In Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs State of Maharashtra (2021), the Court reiterated that a 50% ceiling on the reservation is a binding norm and any deviation from this limit must be based on exceptional and extraordinary circumstances supported by quantifiable data.
In Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) and upheld the 10% EWS reservation introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. The judgment reaffirmed the 50% ceiling on reservations, emphasizing that any breach of this limit must be justified by exceptional circumstances.
The socio-political context in Bihar is marked by a complex interplay of caste dynamics, economic disparities, and political considerations. The proposal to increase the reservation quota was both a response to the findings of the caste survey and a reflection of the political will to address the demands of marginalised communities. However, the following proposal was challenged as the increase in the limit from 50% to 65% violates the law laid down in the Indra Sawhney judgment. Further, the caste survey did not provide adequate data on economic factors like land holdings and thus failed to demonstrate genuine backwardness.
The concept of "proportionate representation," used to support the increase, does not apply to Article 16 (which governs public employment), unlike its application in Articles 243-D, 243-T, 330, and 332 (related to elections). The State did not consult the National Backward Commission before implementing the reservation policy, which is argued to be mandatory. The increased reservation compromises merit and efficiency in the administration.
The Respondent argued that the caste survey revealed a significant proportion of the population belonging to marginalised communities, justifying the need for exceeding the 50% reservation limit. The 50% rule is not an absolute limit and can be exceeded in exceptional circumstances. The State has the legislative authority to implement reservation policies, and consulting a Backward Commission is not mandatory. The increased reservation is necessary to uplift marginalized communities and achieve an egalitarian society. The data from the caste survey is objective and supports the State’s decision.
The Court looked into the circumstances that led the State to increase reserve quotas over the provided 50% ceiling. Although the Court acknowledged the State’s desire to benefit disadvantaged persons, the argument for going beyond 50% lacked in adequate evaluation and rationalisation. The State’s reliance on the proportion of backward classes in the population as the main rationale for going above the 50% prescribed ceiling is insufficient.
The Court also noted that “the state of Bihar, not being a "far-flung or remote area," nor being "out of the mainstream of national life," does not meet the criteria for an "extraordinary situation" that would allow for an overreach of the 50% limit.”
The recent judgment of the Patna High Court has its genesis from the principles set out by the SC in the Indra Sawhney, Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil and Janhit Abhiyan case. All these cases highlight that caps of the reservation shall not exceed 50% with the provision of exigent circumstances being valid only based on pragmatic and empirical evidence.
The Court observed that the State had not properly taken into account the developmental aspect achieved by some of the communities benefiting from the existing reservation policies and welfare measures. This absence of a more complex and research-based analysis of reservation, where progress across numerous areas for various communities is measured, composed another important factor in the Court’s ruling. The Court found the State’s action to be violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 by going beyond the reservation limit and consequently, declaring the amendment unconstitutional.
The Patna High Court's judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's 50% cap on reservations, requiring detailed justification for any breach. It sets a precedent for stringent judicial scrutiny on reservation policies exceeding this limit. By striking down the 65% reservation in Bihar, the judgment emphasizes the need for balanced affirmative action, potentially affecting the socio-economic upliftment of marginalized communities and their access to education and employment.
Looking ahead, this judgment could potentially set the future course of reservation policies not only in Bihar but also across India as it may lead to the reconsideration of the current reservation policies in various states. Further, it might lead to intensive surveys, maintain the proportionate representation in view of both caste and economic factors, and initiate national-level debates on the need to amend the Constitution in light of the socio-economic scenario at present.
Sanya Singh is a practising lawyer based out in New Delhi. She pursued a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from NUSRL, Ranchi and holds a keen interest in civil and commercial litigation. The views expressed are personal
