UPSC Darpan

Polity & GovernanceGS213 October 2026

Karnataka High Court strikes down the 2022 Act that raised SC/ST quotas to 56%

Open in the app — quiz, notes, Mistake Vault हिंदी में पढ़ें

The news

Bengaluru. On Monday, October 12, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, declared 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 ultra vires (beyond the power of) the Constitution. The Act, in force retrospectively from November 1, 2022 under the previous BJP government of Basavaraj Bommai, had raised the Scheduled Caste quota from 15% to 17% and the Scheduled Tribe quota from 3% to 7%. With the 32% OBC quota unchanged, total reservation rose from 50% to 56%. The court held the enhancement “constitutionally impermissible” because it breached the ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney (1992) and “reaffirmed in numerous decisions”.

The chain in one line: Groups cite population share → Karnataka raises SC/ST quotas to 17% and 7% (2022) → total reaches 56% → no extraordinary situation shown → High Court strikes down Sections 3 and 4

Static syllabus linkage

  1. Indra Sawhney fixed the ceiling; the Maratha case refused to revisit it. Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992), a nine-judge Bench, upheld OBC reservation, excluded the creamy layer and capped reservation at 50% save in extraordinary situations. In Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (2021) a five-judge Bench struck down Maharashtra’s Maratha quota.
  2. The ceiling has two known exits: EWS and the Ninth Schedule. In Janhit Abhiyan (2022) the Court upheld, 3:2, the 10% EWS quota of the 103rd Amendment, holding that the cap governs backward-class quotas only. Tamil Nadu’s 69% law was placed in the Ninth Schedule by the 76th Amendment (1994), but I.R. Coelho (2007) held laws added after 24 April 1973 open to basic-structure review.

Why UPSC loves this

  1. Is the 50% ceiling a constitutional principle or a judicial convenience?. GS2 lists “mechanisms, laws, institutions and bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections”. With two quota laws struck down in a week, expect: equality versus representation, the data a State must show, and the courts’ role.

Prelims nuggets

  • Article 16(4) is an enabling provision: it permits, but does not oblige, the State to reserve posts for a backward class not adequately represented in its services.
  • The 76th Constitutional Amendment (1994) placed Tamil Nadu’s 69% reservation law in the Ninth Schedule.
  • Article 335 requires SC/ST claims in services to be considered consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.

Analysis

  1. The ceiling protects the open half, but the line is already porous. Every reserved seat is one fewer open seat, so the court fixed a midpoint to stop the exception swallowing the rule. The strongest objection is that the line is no longer a principle: Janhit Abhiyan let the 10% EWS quota sit above 50%, so totals in many States already exceed half. The ceiling now binds caste-based claims while letting income-based ones through, which weakens the claim that 50% exists to protect open competition.
  2. Population share is a political claim; the constitutional test is representation, shown by data. Article 16(4) asks whether a group is “adequately represented” in services, not whether its quota mirrors its population. Courts therefore want figures on posts actually held: in Madhya Pradesh the High Court found OBCs already held 28.16% of State posts, and M. Nagaraj (2006) demanded quantifiable data before quotas in promotion. The other view is fair: SC and ST exclusion runs deeper than a head-count of posts shows. But proof of need is not proof of an “extraordinary situation”, and that is the bar Indra Sawhney set.
  3. Lens — Institutions: courts are setting a limit that electoral bidding cannot move, and that is their job. Quota increases are popular, so the only real check is judicial. Courts are not refusing reservation; they are holding States to a standard of proof. In Mukesh Kumar v State of Uttarakhand (2020) the Supreme Court held there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in appointments or promotions, so the State must justify how much it gives. The counter-view, that elected bodies best judge social need, has force, but even the Ninth Schedule route ends before the courts after Coelho.

Possible Mains question

In the light of the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on SC/ST quotas, critically examine whether the 50% reservation ceiling should yield to population-based claims. (15 marks, 250 words)

Model approach

  1. Directive — Critically examine. Weigh both cases and reach a judgement.
  2. Introduction — the ruling and the arithmetic. Sample: The Karnataka High Court has struck down a 2022 Act that took reservation to 56%, breaching the Indra Sawhney ceiling.
  3. Body — the ceiling keeps equal opportunity meaningful for the open half. Article 16(4) as an exception to 16(1). Draw a flowchart: population claim → data on representation → extraordinary situation? → upheld or struck down.
  4. Body — the test is representation proved by data, not population share. Value addition: Madhya Pradesh’s OBCs already held 28.16% of posts; M. Nagaraj’s quantifiable-data rule.
  5. Body — the ceiling is already porous, which weakens its logic. Janhit Abhiyan (EWS, 3:2); Tamil Nadu’s 69% in the Ninth Schedule and the Coelho limit.
  6. Body — targeting can do what a higher quota seeks. Davinder Singh (2024) on sub-classification and the creamy-layer suggestion.
  7. Conclusion — count first, then target. Sample: The State must first count who holds which posts, then target benefits within the ceiling or argue its case in the Supreme Court.

Administrator's brainstorm

As Secretary, Social Welfare, Karnataka, half the recruitments under the struck-down law are complete. What do you do?

I could continue on the 17% and 7% rosters pending an appeal, halt all recruitment, or rework pending processes; continuing issues appointments under void sections, halting punishes every candidate. I would stop new appointment orders under the struck sections at once, seek the Advocate General’s written opinion on completed selections, and redraw pending merit lists on the 15% and 3% roster. Affected are candidates of every category and short-staffed departments. The deciding principle is the rule of law: a court order binds the administration until a higher court says otherwise.