Citing 50% cap, Karnataka HC strikes down law to hike quota for SC/ST

Why in the News

Karnataka’s higher quotas for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), which took total reservation to 56%, have been declared unconstitutional for crossing the 50% ceiling. A division bench of the Karnataka High Court 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, 2022.

What did the 2022 Act do, and why?

1. What it is: The Act raised reservation for SCs and STs in State educational institutions and government posts. It took effect retrospectively from November 1, 2022.
2. Quota hike: It raised two shares:
   • the SC quota from 15% to 17%;
   • the ST quota from 3% to 7%.
3. State’s reasons: Citing the Nagamohan Das Commission, the Adi Committee and the K. Ratna Prabha committee, the State argued SCs and STs were under-represented in its services.
4. Population argument: The Ratna Prabha committee found over 90% of Karnataka’s people are SC, ST or Other Backward Classes (OBC), and wanted reservation to match.
5. The takeaway: Karnataka tried to tie reservation to population share, a basis the 50% rule does not accept.

Why did the court strike it down?

1. Section 3 struck down: Insofar as it takes reservation beyond 50%, it violates Articles 14 and 15, the guarantees of equality before law and against discrimination.
2. Section 4 struck down: It violates Articles 14 and 16, the second guaranteeing equal opportunity in public employment.
3. Indra Sawhney ceiling: In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), a nine judge bench fixed this ceiling on reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The limit cannot be stretched or tied to population share, but allows an exception in “extraordinary situations”.
4. No extraordinary situation: The bench held that a subjective opinion that a class deserves a few points more is not extraordinary. Breaching the limit would undermine equality, a founding value of the Constitution.
5. Open competition remains: Members of reserved classes can still compete for the remaining general seats and posts.

Why did the missing consultation matter?

1. Mandatory consultation: Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) require governments to consult the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) on major policies affecting these groups.
2. Consultation too late: The State wrote to the Commissions nearly three years after enacting the law. The bench held that consultation, to be meaningful, “must precede the decision”.
3. No adverse effect exception: It rejected the argument that consultation is needed only when a policy harms SCs or STs.

Challenges

1. Population based demands: States with large backward populations argue a fixed cap cannot match their share. Eg. Maratha reservation, struck down in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (2021).
2. Undefined exception: Courts have declined to list what counts as extraordinary, so States keep testing the limit.
3. EWS beyond the cap: The Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) sits outside the ceiling, so States argue the cap is not absolute.
4. Commissions sidelined: Late or skipped consultation reduces the NCSC and NCST to a formality.

Way Forward

1. Data before breach: Back any claim of an extraordinary situation with current, quantifiable data, not only committee opinion.
2. Consult first: Seek the NCSC’s and NCST’s views before drafting a reservation law.
3. Redistribution within the ceiling: Use sub-classification of SCs and STs, allowed in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), to spread benefits inside the existing limit.

Conclusion

Karnataka’s enhanced quotas now stand struck down, and no next step by the State has been reported. Whether it can show an extraordinary situation, after consulting the two national Commissions first, decides whether the higher quotas can return.

Back2Basics: National Commissions for SCs and STs

1. Origin: Article 338 first provided a Special Officer, the Commissioner for SCs and STs, to report to the President on constitutional safeguards.
2. One commission, then two: The 65th Amendment Act, 1990 created a multi member National Commission for SCs and STs. The 89th Amendment Act, 2003 split it, adding Article 338A for the NCST.
3. Powers: In an investigation, the Commissions have a civil court’s powers to summon persons and documents, and they report annually to the President.
4. Limits: Their recommendations are advisory, and they cannot enforce a verdict.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026] X’ was addressing a seminar on the meaning of the term ‘law’ as provided under Article 13, Part III of the Constitution of India. ‘X’ explained that the meaning of the term ‘law’ in the Constitution of India was very comprehensive. It included ordinances, orders and even rules and regulations. ‘Y’ pointed out that the term ‘law’ in Article 13 also included custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law, to which ‘X’ was not convinced. Based on the above, select the correct conclusion from the options given below: (a) X is correct in the interpretation of law, including the view on non-inclusion of custom (b) The view of Y that ‘law’ included custom is not correct (c) The views of both X and Y are correct (d) The view of only Y is correct ANSWER: D”