Patna High Court lifts 65% of the quota for Bihar colleges and jobs

The previous year, Bihar increased the percentage of SCs, STs, EBCs, and OBCs (other backward classes) in government positions and educational institutions from 50% to 65%.

In a decision that dealt a blow to the state government and will have far-reaching political and social repercussions, the Patna high court on Thursday overturned Bihar’s decision from the previous year to increase caste-based quotas to 65%. The court stressed that merit could not be entirely sacrificed at the altar of reparations.

In response to a caste survey that revealed these groups made up approximately 84% of the state’s population, Bihar increased the quota for scheduled castes (SCs), scheduled tribes (STs), extremely backward classes (EBCs), and other backward classes (OBCs) in educational institutions and government jobs from 50% to 65% last year.

Reacting to the Patna High Court’s quota verdict, the BJP and RJD promise to appeal to the Supreme Court.

However, the court pointed out that not only were underrepresented communities suitably represented in public employment, but the government had not made any effort to conduct a thorough investigation or analysis prior to expanding reservation above the threshold established by the Supreme Court in the seminal Indira Sawhney ruling in 1992.

With respect to a number of writ petitions that had challenged the 2023 law, the bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar held, “We set aside the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2023 and the Bihar Reservation (in Admission to Educational Institutions) Amendment Act, 2023 as ultra vires the Constitution and violative of the equality clause under Articles 14, 15, and 16.”

In addition to being “bad in law,” the high court ruled that the increase of reservations beyond the fifty percent threshold, which was established by a nine-judge Supreme Court bench in 1992, was against the fundamental equality principles derived from the Constitution because the state was unable to provide any justification for deviating from the fifty percent norm.

“The fact that underrepresented communities are still fairly represented in public employment due to reservation and merit is evidence that some castes or communities have benefited from reservation and the various welfare programs the State has put in place to help them build some social capital. The court stated that there is no need for an increase in reservations because there is currently sufficient representation and no justification for breaking the 50% rule, which is never acceptable.

The state government declared that it would file an appeal with the Supreme Court. Deputy Chief Minister Samrat Choudhury stated, “The Bihar government will challenge the high court order before the Supreme Court after seeking legal opinion.”

The government was targeted by the opposition. “I am horrified by the verdict. The caste survey served as the foundation for increased quotas, but the BJP has been attempting to undermine it. Tejashwi Yadav, the head of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, stated, “It is not surprising that such a verdict has come within days of the party’s return to power at the Centre.”

The 2023 caste survey, a historic initiative that physically recorded castes for the first time in independent India, served as the foundation for the quota increase. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, who was then in coalition with the RJD, was the driving force behind the initiative. A few months later, he joined forces with the BJP, changing sides.

The Bihar assembly unanimously approved the Bihar Reservation (Admission In Educational Institutions) Amendment Bill, 2023 and the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services Amendment Bill, 2023, raising the reservation quota from 50% to 65% and allocating 35% for the general category, in response to the survey results.

With a total of 65% in reservations, the new regulations raised the quotas for SCs to 20%, STs to 2%, EBCs to 25%, and OBCs to 18%. According to the study, the state’s population was composed of 63.13% EBCs and OBCs, 19.65% SCs, 1.68% STs, and 15.52% higher castes. November 21, 2023 was the publication date of the notification.

However, a number of petitioners opposed the law, claiming that the caste survey results had not been scientifically analyzed and that the quota increase was only justified by the underrepresentation of Indians in government and educational institutions. The top court expressed similar worries, emphasizing the lack of a comprehensive examination of the gathered information.

The Bench noted that the state government’s summary of educational statistics only reflects the total number of students enrolled in each stage of education, not the percentage of students across all stages. It stated, “From the above details, we cannot discern either a case of proportionate representation or an adequate representation, nor do we find a significant disparity among various categories.”

While it is not required to consult an expert or consult a legally created committee prior to making any decisions about quota increases, the bench emphasized the significance of doing such an exercise.

“What concerns us is that neither the government nor the legislature conducted any such exercise or analysis while enacting the Amendment Acts. The court ruled that the revision that increased reservations over 50% after the data was collected was again based on proportionate representation in state and educational institution services, which is obviously illegal under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).

The State may establish exceptional provisions, such as reservations, for the advancement of socially and educationally disadvantaged groups under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).

The court restated the fundamental idea that merit cannot be fully compromised, even though reservations seek to loosen the grip of a few at the expense of the many. The bench stated that this idea supported the 50% reservation cap set in the Indra Sawhney ruling, emphasizing the necessity of removing the creamy layer among the lower classes in order to avoid a small number of people from monopolizing reserved advantages.

Regarding the matter at hand, the Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes are all subject to the 50% reservation rule, which is equally applicable under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). We don’t see any special circumstances that would allow the State to break the law. The bench determined that the rise over the 50% limit is unlawful because it violates the equality principles derived from the Constitution. These values are upheld by the numerous precedents described in this judgment and apply to both the State and us equally.

In Bihar, caste-based quotas are a contentious political topic that dominated the recently held general elections. The supreme court’s decision to overturn the statute is expected to rekindle the controversy around reservations and could lead to further political scheming. In addition, the decision emphasizes how difficult it is to strike a balance between the constitutional requirement for equality and affirmative action programs designed to correct historical wrongs.

There is currently a law in Tamil Nadu that guarantees 69% reservation for specific classes. Despite a current legal challenge before the highest court, this statute has been spared thus far because it was enacted with presidential consent in 1993 and placed in the Constitution’s Ninth Schedule, which offers very narrow judicial review powers.

The 10% EWS quota was upheld by the Supreme Court in November 2022, and this ruling also had an impact on the 50% reservation cap. The 50% reservation ceiling was deemed “not inviolable or inflexible” by the majority ruling at the time, which represented a paradigm shift from the thumb rule that had previously controlled reservations in India and prohibited governments from adopting quotas that raise the proportion above 50%. The 3-2 opinion stated that the 50% ceiling could only be applied to the then-current provisions of the Constitution and could not be extended to the 2019 amendment or any other later legislation.