Karnataka High Court strikes down law increasing reservation for SCs/STs, declares it unconstitutional
The Karnataka High Court has declared the recent law that would increase reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes unconstitutional. The court reaffirmed the fifty percent ceiling on total reservations as a binding constitutional principle.
India’s system of reservation allocates a share of government jobs and educational seats to historically disadvantaged groups, primarily Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC). The Constitution permits such affirmative action but also imposes a ceiling of fifty percent on the total share of reserved positions, a limit that the Supreme Court has upheld in several cases. In Karnataka, the state legislature passed a law last year that would raise the quota for SC and ST communities, pushing the overall reservation percentage beyond the established ceiling. The proposal sparked debate among policymakers, legal experts and civil society groups about the balance between social justice and constitutional limits.
On Monday, a five‑judge bench of the Karnataka High Court examined the legislation and concluded that it violated the constitutional ceiling of fifty percent. The judges held that any increase in reservation that results in a total share above the limit is invalid, regardless of the intention to benefit specific groups. They cited earlier Supreme Court rulings that treat the ceiling as a binding principle designed to maintain merit and administrative efficiency. Consequently, the court struck down the law in its entirety and ordered the state government to revert to the previous reservation structure.
The ruling has immediate political repercussions in the state, where the ruling party had promoted the amendment as a step toward greater inclusion for SC and ST communities. Opposition leaders welcomed the decision, arguing that it upholds the rule of law, while some social activists expressed disappointment, saying the ceiling restricts needed redress for historically marginalized groups. For readers across India, the judgment reinforces a national legal standard that may affect similar proposals in other states, and it underscores the ongoing tension between affirmative action policies and constitutional constraints.
Comments 0