Karnataka HC strikes down 56% reservation, says SC/ST quota hike breaches 50% cap

The Karnataka High Court on Monday, October 12, struck down a 2022 law that increased reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), ruling that the enhanced quotas breached the constitutionally established 50% ceiling on reservations.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS 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, unconstitutional. The court held that taking the overall reservation beyond 50% violated the equality provisions of the Constitution.

The law, enacted by the previous BJP government led by Basavaraj Bommai, increased the SC quota from 15% to 17% and the ST quota from 3% to 7%. With the 32% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) remaining unchanged, the overall reservation in Karnataka rose from 50% to 56%.

“Section 3 of the Act, insofar as it takes the aggregate reservation beyond the ceiling of 50%, is struck down as it violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Section 4 of the Act is also struck down as unconstitutional, as it violates Articles 14 and 16,” the Bench said in its order.

The judgment followed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the law, including a public interest litigation filed by Raichur-based social worker Mahendra Kumar Mitra and a petition by civil engineering graduates H R Sagar and others. The latter challenged enhanced reservation in recruitment to posts in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

One of the central questions before the court was whether the state could exceed the 50% ceiling by citing the population and inadequate representation of backward communities. The state had argued that more than 90% of Karnataka’s population belonged to SC, ST and OBC communities and that reservations should reflect their share of the population.

Rejecting this argument, the Bench said the numerical strength of backward classes did not permit the state to breach the ceiling. “The subjective opinion of the state government that a backward class is not adequately represented in proportion to its population does not enable the state to exceed the limit of 50% (ceiling reservation), but only to provide for reservation within the said limit,” it said.

The court reiterated that the 50% ceiling established by the Supreme Court in the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment was a binding constitutional principle intended to balance affirmative action with equality of opportunity. While the Supreme Court had recognised the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary circumstances, the Bench said a claim of inadequate representation or an increase in population did not, by itself, justify exceeding the limit.

The state had relied on the Justice HN Nagamohan Das Commission report, the Adi Committee report and other studies on backwardness, inadequate representation and administrative efficiency to justify the increase. The High Court said the findings could support measures to ensure marginalised communities received reservation benefits, including internal reservation, but did not establish grounds for exceeding the overall ceiling.

The Bench also rejected the argument that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections, had removed the 50% ceiling for other categories. It said the amendment did not authorise the state to expand reservations for backward classes beyond the established limit.

Another ground for striking down the law was the state government’s failure to consult the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes before enacting it.

The court said consultation with the two constitutional bodies was mandatory under Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) of the Constitution, as the legislation concerned a major policy matter affecting SCs and STs. It rejected the state’s reliance on letters sent to the commissions on December 10, 2025, and January 20, 2026, nearly three years after the law was enacted and after its validity had been challenged in court.

“Consultation, to be meaningful and effective, must precede the decision,” the Bench said, adding that merely writing to the commissions after enacting the law could not satisfy the constitutional requirement.

The ruling is a setback for the state government, which has maintained that the enhanced quotas are necessary to address the inadequate representation of SCs and STs. Deputy Chief Minister G Parameshwara said the government would explore all legal options, including an appeal before the Supreme Court.

In a statement issued on Monday evening, Parameshwara also urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Union government to review the 50% reservation ceiling, pursue constitutional and legislative measures to protect enhanced quotas, and reconsider Karnataka’s request to include the provisions in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

He criticised the previous BJP government for enacting the legislation without first securing constitutional protection for the enhanced reservation. “In October 2022, the then BJP government was fully aware that enhancing SC/ST reservation would increase the total reservation in Karnataka to 56 per cent, exceeding the prevailing 50 per cent ceiling,” he said.

The Union government had deferred Karnataka’s request for inclusion in the Ninth Schedule, citing the pending litigation, according to Parameshwara. He said the Union government should not continue to cite the court proceedings without addressing the constitutional framework needed to protect the enhanced reservation.

Former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah also criticised the BJP government’s handling of the issue. He said the Justice Nagamohan Das Committee, constituted during the Congress government’s tenure, had provided the basis for increasing the quotas and that demands for enhanced reservation reflected a long-standing struggle by marginalised communities.

“Reservation is not charity. It is a constitutional instrument for correcting historical injustice and securing representation,” Siddaramaiah said.

He questioned why the BJP government had announced the increase ahead of the 2023 Assembly elections without ensuring that it would withstand constitutional scrutiny. He also urged the Union government to review the reservation ceiling and reconsider Karnataka’s request for inclusion in the Ninth Schedule.

The 50% ceiling was established by a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the 1992 Indra Sawhney case, which examined reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. The ruling held that reservations should ordinarily not exceed 50%, while leaving room for exceptional circumstances. The Karnataka High Court’s judgment reiterates that the state must justify any departure from this limit within the constitutional framework.

The court had earlier clarified that appointments arising from recruitment processes already under way would remain subject to the final outcome of the litigation. Appointment and promotion letters were required to state this condition explicitly, and candidates could not claim an equitable right to appointments if the enhanced reservation was ultimately struck down.