BENGALURU: In a major setback to the state government, the Karnataka High Court on Monday 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, through which the reservation for persons from Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) was increased from 15% to 17% and from 3% to 7% respectively.
The reservation for other backward classes (OBCs) was retained at 32%, but still the total quota exceeded the permissible 50%. “Section 3, insofar as it takes the aggregate reservation beyond the ceiling of 50%, is struck down as it violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Section 4 is also struck down as unconstitutional, as it violates Articles 14 and 16,” a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K S Hemalekha said.
The Bench passed the order, allowing a batch of petitions including a PIL filed by Mahendra Kumar Mitra and others questioning the width of the power of the state to provide reservation within the scheme of the equal protection and equal opportunity clauses - Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The Act came into force on January 12, 2023.
Not permissible for K’taka to exceed 50% quota ceiling, says HC
Referring to several judgments of the apex court, including Indra Sawhney case, the High Court noted that notwithstanding the state’s legislative competence to enact the Act, it was mandatory for the state government to consult the National Commissions for SCs and STs. Merely writing a letter after enacting the Act cannot be considered consultation as required under Articles 338 (9) and 338A(9) of the Constitution.
The letters dated December 10, 2025 and January 20, 2026 were written by the state to the Commissions nearly three years after the Act was enacted and after its validity had been called into question before the court. Consultation, to be meaningful and effective, must precede the decision, it observed.
Stating that the rule that reservation would not exceed 50% stood obliterated, the state government contended that Articles 245 and 246 empower the state legislature to enact the impugned Act and the said power is not affected by Articles 338(9) and 338A.
The court said there is no dispute that the state legislature has the legislative competence to enact the Act, but it is erroneous to suggest that the power under Articles 245 and 246 is not circumscribed by the other provisions of the Constitution, which require consultation with Commissions on all major policy matters affecting SC/STs, and it cannot be disregarded, the court added.
The state contended that over 90% of the population in the state is SC/ST and OBCs, and the reservation should be the percentage of that population. But the court said that accepting this contention would be destructive of the principle of equality enshrined under the Constitution.
On the 50% ceiling, the court said it will be equally applicable to reservation under Article 15(4) as it is for Article 16(4). It will not be permissible for the state to exceed the limit unless a compelling case of an exception under extraordinary circumstances is established, the court clarified.
The court stated that there is no cavil that the opinion of the state to provide for reservation based on the Ratnaprabha Committee report would not warrant a meritorious review. But in the present case, the court held that the question is not whether the state can enact a law providing for reservation, but whether the reservation can exceed the 50% ceiling limit.
Referring to the state’s contention on the Nagamohan Das Commission conclusion that certain communities are marginalised and that benefits of reservation have not percolated to these communities may perhaps present a case for internal reservation, the court said. But that does not present a case for breaching the 50% rule. The contention that the circumstances as mentioned in the reports qualify for an exception to the 50% ceiling rule is unmerited, it stated.
“... It ignores the very foundation of the said rule. The fact that the reservation in favour of, or the representation of, certain communities in the services of the state is less than their proportion of the population (the reservation is only 18%, whereas the population is 24.10%) does not present any extraordinary circumstance which would warrant an increase beyond the said limit, thus reducing the pool of appointments that are available for general merit candidates,” it added.
State must approach SC, says Bommai
BJP MP from Haveri Basavaraj Bommai said the State Government should file a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Karnataka High Court’s ruling that struck down the hike in SC/ST reservations. He warned that if the government fails to do so, they will take the matter to the Supreme Court. Bommai, a former CM, said that when their government increased the reservations, it was done based on the Justice Nagamohan Das committee report and after passing legislation in both houses of the state legislature. He alleged that those who filed the PIL did so out of opposition to the development of the SC and ST communities. The State Government must definitely take this matter to the Supreme Court, he added.
