Reservation Beyond 50% Ceiling Without Extraordinary Circumstances Violates Articles 14, 15 And 16: Karnataka High Court

"The ceiling limit of 50% with the 'extraordinary circumstances' exception, is the just balance—what is termed as the 'Goldilocks solution'—i.e. the solution containing the right balance that allows the State sufficient latitude to ensure meaningful affirmative action, to those who deserve it, and at the same time ensures that the essential content of equality is retained." High Court of Karnataka, in a significant judgment dated 12 October 2026, struck down 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, as unconstitutional.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha held that increasing the aggregate reservation for backward classes, including SCs and STs, beyond the 50% ceiling without proving the existence of extraordinary circumstances constitutes a breach of the constitutional guarantee of equality. The bench observed that the rule of 50% is not a mere rule of prudence but a binding constitutional limit intended to preserve the equality code under the Constitution.

The Karnataka Act of 2022 enhanced reservation for Scheduled Castes from 15% to 17% and for Scheduled Tribes from 3% to 7%, taking the total reservation in the state to 56%. This increase was challenged by several petitioners on the grounds that it breached the 50% ceiling mandated by Supreme Court precedents, including Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. The State of Karnataka contended that empirical reports, including the Nagamohan Das Commission Report, provided a special case for the enhancement based on demographic shifts and inadequate representation.

The primary issue was whether the State possesses the power to increase reservations beyond the 50% ceiling and whether the findings of the expert commissions constituted "extraordinary circumstances" sufficient to override this limit. Additionally, the court examined whether the failure to consult the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes under Article 338 and 338A, respectively, rendered the enactment void.

50% Ceiling Is A Binding Constitutional Limit

The court underscored that the 50% ceiling is not an elastic limit but a core component of the equality code under Articles 14, 15, and 16. Rejecting the State's plea, the bench noted that even if a class is identified as backward, the enabling power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) must remain within the "numerical benchmark" of 50%. The court affirmed that this ceiling acts as a boundary of the State's power to maintain the balance between affirmative action and the principle of equality.

Extraordinary Circumstances Must Be Established

While acknowledging that the 50% rule admits an exception for extraordinary circumstances, the court clarified that this exception is reserved for extreme cases, such as in remote or far-flung areas where populations are isolated from the national mainstream. The court held that a subjective opinion that a community requires higher representation due to population growth does not qualify as an "extraordinary circumstance."

"The mere collection of data which, according to the State, reflects the 'backwardness' and 'inadequacy of representation' of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes does not enable the State to breach the 50% limit."

No Obliteration by the 103rd Amendment

The court rejected the State's argument that the 103rd Amendment, which introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), had obliterated the 50% rule. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Janhit Abhiyan, the bench clarified that the EWS quota is an entirely separate category and cannot be used to overstretch reservation for other backward classes beyond the established 50% limit.

Meaningful Consultation Is Mandatory

The bench emphasized that consultation with the National Commissions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Article 338(9) and Article 338A(9) is a mandatory constitutional requirement for major policy matters. It noted that the State's attempt to consult the Commissions years after the enactment of the Act, and after the litigation had already commenced, failed to meet the threshold of a "meaningful and effective" consultation.

"Consultation, to be meaningful and effective, must precede the decision. The contention that consultation is mandatory only if the policy adversely affects any Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is also unmerited."

The High Court ultimately declared Sections 3 and 4 of the Act unconstitutional and struck them down for violating the equality guarantee. The decision reinforces that while the State has the power to provide reservation, such power is strictly circumscribed by the constitutional mandate to ensure that the principle of equality is not "eclipsed" by excessive reservation.

Date of Decision: 12 October 2026