Patna High Court Strikes Down 65% Quota In Bihar

Recently, the Patna High Court set aside the amendments passed by the Bihar legislature in 2023 to increase the reservation Backward Classes (BC), Extremely Backward Classes (EBC), Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) from 50% to 65% in educational institutions and government jobs.

Patna High Court Strikes Down 65% Quota In Bihar: Background

• Decision of the Bihar Government: Following the caste-based survey report, the government of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar decided to increase the reservation for Backward Classes, Extremely Backward Classes (EBC), Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) due to a lack of adequate representation of these classes. 
  • The State Government had not given this reservation on a proportionate basis.
• Reservation to 75%: Together with the 10% Economically Backward Class (EWS) quota, the Bill had pushed reservation in Bihar to 75%, well past the 50% ceiling set by the Supreme Court.
• Filing of PIL: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition was filed in the Patna High Court challenging the decision of the Bihar Government to increase reservation in the State from 50% to 65%.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Opinion of the Patna High Court

• Purpose of Reservation: The reservation system was created to dismantle the dominance of a few groups and to uplift the backward classes.
• Balancing Merit: While addressing social inequities, it is crucial that merit is not entirely disregarded.
• Amendments made violate Equality: Court opined that amendments are beyond the powers of the constitution and it violates equality clause under Articles 14, 15, and 16.

The Indra Sawhney Ruling

• About 50% ceiling: 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.
• Majority Verdict (6-3): Upheld the 27% quota for Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC).
• First Precedent: Established that the criteria for reservation should be “social and educational backwardness”.
• Second Precedent: Reaffirmed the 50% limit on vertical quotas as set by earlier judgments.
• Key Judgments Referenced:
  • M R Balaji v State of Mysore (1963)
  • Devadasan v Union of India (1964)
• Exception Clause: The 50% limit can be exceeded only in “exceptional circumstances”.
• Indra Sawhney Ruling: Reaffirmed in numerous subsequent cases. However, 
  • Attempts to gain political advantage: Attempts to exceed the 50% reservation limit persist in Bihar and other states.
    • Breaching the 50% limit has become a politically charged issue.
  • Frequent Litigation: The 50% ceiling is often contested in courts as states and groups push for higher quotas to address specific social and political demands, leading to judicial review and interpretations.

Check Out UPSC Modules From PW Store

Legal Challenge to Ceiling

• Limit challenged before Supreme Court: The 50% reservation limit is currently being challenged before the Supreme Court.
• Court Actions: Despite the pending challenge, courts have struck down laws that attempt to exceed the 50% limit.
• Notable Exception: The 10% quota for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), introduced in 2019, is the only exception to this rule so far.
  • Supreme Court Verdict (November 2022): A five-judge Bench upheld the EWS quota in a 3-2 decision.
  • Ruling Details: The verdict stated that the 50% ceiling applies only to SC/ST and OBC quotas. 
  • EWS Quota Classification: The EWS quota is considered a separate category outside the ‘backwardness’ framework.
  • Majority Opinion: The ceiling limit is not considered inflexible or inviolable for all times. This opinion  has led to questions: 
    • Potential Reopening of Indra Sawhney Case: Questions arise whether the Supreme Court might reconsider the Indra Sawhney verdict.
    • Minority Opinion: Two judges expressed concern over breaching the 50% ceiling since the issue is pending before the court.
    • Cautionary Note: They warned that allowing breaches of the 50% rule could lead to further violations and compartmentalization of reservations.

Arguments in favour of 50% Ceiling

• Contradict Principle of Equality: Critics argue that exceeding the 50% reservation limit would contradict the principle of equality.
  • There is a need to maintain a balance between affirmative action through reservations and the overarching principle of equality under the law.
• Reservations as Exceptions: Reservations are viewed as exceptions to ensure equality rather than becoming the norm.
  • Dr. B R Ambedkar’s speech in the Constituent Assembly is frequently cited, warning that unqualified reservations could undermine the principle of equality.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Criticism of 50% Ceiling and in favour of reservation

• Arbitrary Ceiling: Critics argue that the 50% reservation limit is arbitrary and imposed by the court. Despite efforts by the legislature to exceed this limit, the courts have consistently upheld the 50% ceiling.
• Debate Over Legitimacy: There is ongoing debate regarding the legitimacy and flexibility of the 50% reservation ceiling set by judicial interpretation.
• Reservations as Fundamental Right: Some argue that reservations are integral to the fundamental right to equality and form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Judicial Perspective: The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling upheld the OBC quota in NEET, emphasising that reservations do not undermine merit but rather contribute to its distribution.

Reservation in Other states

• Tamil Nadu: Introduced the Tamil Nadu reservation law, which exceeded the 50% limit, into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.
  • The Ninth Schedule provides the law with a “safe harbour” from judicial review under Article 31A of the Constitution. 

• • Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be challenged for reasons of violating any fundamental right protected under the Constitution.
• Maharashtra: In May 2021, a five-judge SC Bench unanimously struck down a Maharashtra law that provided reservation to the Maratha community as unconstitutional, holding that the quota limit could not exceed 50%. 
  • With the implementation of the Maratha quota, reservation in the state could have gone up to 68%.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

Conclusion

The Supreme Court will soon revisit the Indra Sawhney case, focusing on substantive equality instead of formal equality.

• This review will incorporate insights gained from over three decades of legal decisions on reservations since the Mandal Commission report. 
• The court’s reassessment could lead to significant changes in how reservation policies are understood and applied.