In a significant judicial decision, the Patna High Court has set aside the Bihar government’s recent law that aimed to increase the reservation quota for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) from 50% to 65%. This ruling was in response to multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) that challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment, arguing that it violated the fundamental principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
The Bihar government had passed legislation to increase the reservation percentage in government jobs and educational institutions. This amendment aimed to provide 20% reservation for SCs, 2% for STs, 25% for Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs), and 18% for OBCs, in addition to the existing 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). The total reservation quota, therefore, was proposed to be 75%.
Legal Challenge
The petitioners contended that this amendment contravened the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Indra Sawhney case, which set a cap of 50% on reservations unless exceptional circumstances justify exceeding this limit. They argued that the Bihar government’s move to increase the reservation quota was based on politically motivated and inflated caste survey data, which showed OBCs and EBCs comprising 63.13% of the population.
Additionally, the petitioners asserted that the survey excluded crucial economic indicators such as land holdings, undermining the integrity and comprehensiveness of the data used to justify the reservation increase【188†source】【189†source】【190†source】.
Court’s Decision
The High Court, led by Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran, found the government’s amendment to be unconstitutional and not in line with the principles of equality and merit enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The court emphasized that reservation policies must balance affirmative action with meritocracy and that exceeding the 50% cap without substantial justification undermines this balance.
Implications
This decision has significant implications for the state’s reservation policies and sets a precedent for other states considering similar increases. It underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that reservation policies adhere to constitutional mandates and do not disproportionately favor any particular group without adequate justification.