Share :
PROLOGUE
While the Constitution of India empowers the government to implement special measures for disadvantaged groups in pursuit of social equity, court rulings on reservation policies frequently emphasize on “merit” and “administrative efficiency” rather than proportional representation. This conflict is clearly illustrated in the Patna High Court’s recent decision to invalidate Bihar’s policy of 65% reservation in the case of Gaurav Kumar & Ors., vs. The State of Bihar, 2024.
FACTS
- In November 2023, the Bihar government issued gazette notifications to raise the quota for deprived castes from 50% to 65%. Bihar government in November, 2023, had officially notified in the state gazette two Bills namely Bihar Reservation [for Scheduled Castes (“SC”), Scheduled Tribes (“ST”), and Other Back Classes(“OBC”) (Amendment) Act, 2023] (the “Amendment Act”), and the Bihar (in admission in educational institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023. Through these Amendments, the quota for SC was increased to 20%; for ST to 2%; extremely backward castes (“BC”) to 25% and for OBC to 18%, making it to 65% which exceeded the limit of 50%.
- In 2024, Patna High Court dealt with a series of 10 writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act.
- This decision was taken following a caste-based survey report, which showed the need for increased representation of BC, EBC, SC and ST communities.
- The Bihar Assembly unanimously passed the Bihar Reservation Amendment Bill in November 2023 to implement this 65% quota.
- A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed challenging the Bihar government’s decision to increase reservations beyond 50%.
KEY LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED
- The main issue was the legality and constitutionality of the Bihar government’s decision to increase reservation for backward classes from 50% to 65%.
2. The question of proportionate representation vs. adequate representation.
THE VERDICT
A division bench at The Patna High Court reserved their judgment on a series of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of raising the quota and has struck down the Bihar government’s 65% reservation decision as being discriminatory and violative of Article 14, Article 15, Article 16 of the Constitution of India, 1949 (the “Constitution”).
The Patna High Court’s judgment of Bihar’s 65% reservation policy highlights the distinction between “proportionate representation” and “adequate representation.” The court noted that the term “proportionate” is alien to Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, which use the term “inadequacy of representation.” This distinction was emphasized in the landmark case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (“Indra Sawhney case”), where the Supreme Court observed that “adequate representation cannot be read as proportionate representation.” The court’s decision underscores that while the proportion of the population of backward classes is relevant, it does not justify proportionate reservations.
DIVING INTO THE DETAILS
The Bihar government’s approach to implementing reservation policies based solely on caste survey data was criticized by the Patna High Court. The Bihar government’s argument for providing reservation beyond the ceiling limit was that since the backward classes constitute a major part of the population and their representation in the various services and educational institutions is lesser in proportion than the unreserved category of government employees, therefore an affirmative action to provide 65% reservation to reserved category is nothing but an exceptional treatment being permissible in the Constitution.
The court stressed the importance of conducting a comprehensive analysis and seeking expert opinions before enacting such policies. This stance echoes the Supreme Court’s decision in the Indra Sawhney case, where the importance of consulting sociologists and other specialists was highlighted. The High Court’s ruling underscores the necessity of a more thorough and informed approach to reservation policy-making, rather than relying exclusively on raw survey data.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Indra Sawhney case established a 50% ceiling on reservations, it acknowledged that certain exceptional situations might warrant special consideration. The Court indicated that this limit could be flexible when addressing the needs of people living in isolated or remote regions who are disconnected from mainstream national life. The unique circumstances and conditions of these communities might justify differential treatment, potentially allowing for reservations that exceed the 50% threshold.
In the Indra Sawhney case, the Court acknowledged that the 50% reservation limit could be exceeded in exceptional cases. However, any such increase would require strong justification to ensure it aligns with Articles 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
The Court also emphasized that assessing adequate representation is not simply about overall numbers of backward classes in government services. Instead, it involves examining their representation across various administrative levels and grades. The Court stressed that what truly matters is the effective influence these groups have in administration, rather than just their total numerical presence.
WAY FORWARD
The Patna High Court’s ruling reinforces the judicial system’s long-standing position on upholding 50% limit on reservations and emphasizing merit. This decision questions the practice of increasing quotas based on caste surveys and brings to the forefront the continuing discussion about striking a balance between achieving social equity and maintaining effective governance.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
