Patna High Court strikes down 65% quota in Bihar

Syllabus: Indian Constitution: Fundamental Rights

Source: TH

Context: The Patna High Court recently struck down Bihar’s attempt to raise Backward Classes (BC) reservation to 18%, Extremely Backward Communities (EBC) to 25%, and adjusted quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, resulting in a total reservation of 65%.

Background of the case:

The Bihar government decided to increase reservations for Backward Classes, Extremely Backward Classes (EBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST) following a caste-based survey, which showed these castes constituted 84% of the population of Bihar. This decision aimed to address the inadequate representation of these groups without adhering to a proportionate basis. The move, which included a 10% quota for Economically Backward Classes (EWS), raised reservations in Bihar to 75% (65% for backward castes and 10% for EWS), surpassing the 50% ceiling mandated by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging this increase was filed in the Patna High Court.

The Patna High Court struck down amendments to Bihar’s reservation system for the following reasons:

Violation of Constitutional Equality: The amendments were deemed to violate Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on various grounds including caste.

• Exceeding 50% Reservation Limit: The amendments raised reservations in Bihar to 65%, which exceeded the 50% ceiling set by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case (1992). The court upheld the 50% limit as a legal restriction on total reservations.

• Lack of Proportionate Basis: The reservation increase was not based on a proportionate representation framework, which is required for reservation policies to align with constitutional principles.

• Absence of Adequate Study: The state government did not conduct a thorough analysis or in-depth study to justify the need for and impact of the increased reservations, raising concerns about the rationale behind the amendments.

• Judicial Precedents: The court referred to previous judgments and constitutional interpretations that underscored the importance of maintaining a balance between affirmative action and constitutional limits on reservations.

What was Indra Sawhney’s judgment?

The 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment by a 9-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court established that reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs must not exceed 50% of total seats in legislatures, higher education, and public employment. This limit was considered fair and reasonable, with flexibility allowed only in extraordinary situations.

Other judgement:

• Maratha Reservation: Increased total reservations in Maharashtra to 68%, struck down by the SC in 2021 for exceeding the 50% ceiling.

Exceptions:

• State Exceptions: Despite the limit, some states, notably Tamil Nadu with 69% reservation, and occasionally the Union government and the Supreme Court itself, have breached this ceiling.

• Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) Reservation: Upheld by a 3:2 majority in 2023, stating the 50% ceiling is flexible but applies primarily to SCs, STs, and OBCs reservations.

Current reservation % in central government:

Arguments in favour of the 50% Ceiling:

• Contradiction with Equality: Critics argue exceeding the 50% reservation limit contradicts the principle of equality.

• Balance Needed: Maintaining a balance between reservations for affirmative action and equality under the law is crucial.

• Reservations as Exceptions: Reservations should be exceptions to ensure equality, as warned by Dr B R Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly.

Criticism of the 50% Ceiling and Support for Reservations:

• Arbitrary Limit: Critics view the 50% reservation limit as arbitrary, imposed by courts despite legislative attempts to exceed it.

• Debate on Legitimacy: Ongoing debate questions the legitimacy and flexibility of the 50% reservation ceiling established through judicial interpretation.

• Reservations as Fundamental Right: Some argue reservations are integral to the fundamental right to equality and a part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

• Judicial Perspective: The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling upheld the OBC quota in NEET, affirming that reservations enhance merit distribution rather than undermine it.

Conclusion:

The Patna High Court’s decision underscores the challenge of balancing social justice initiatives with constitutional limits on reservation quotas, highlighting the importance of rigorous study and adherence to judicial precedents in policy-making.

Insta Links:

• Reservation System in India

Mains Link:

• Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine. (UPSC 2018)

Prelims Link:

Consider the following statements: (USPC 2020)

The Constitution of India defines its ‘basic structure’ in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.

The Constitution of India provides for ‘judicial review’ to safeguard the citizens’ liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Ans: (d)