Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Reservation Quota Beyond 50% is Unconstitutional: Patna High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Striking Down Bihar’s Enhanced Reservation Policy, Court Cites Lack of Rational Analysis and Adherence to Constitutional Limits

In a significant verdict, the Patna High Court has nullified the Bihar government’s decision to increase reservations for backward classes, scheduled castes, and scheduled tribes to 65%. The court, led by Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar, reiterated the constitutional ceiling of 50% on reservations, stressing the importance of rational analysis and adherence to established legal principles.

The Bihar government, citing data from a caste survey, introduced amendments to the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services Act and the Bihar Reservation (in Admission to Educational Institutions) Act in 2023. These amendments aimed to increase the reservation quota to 65%, arguing that the majority of the state’s population belongs to marginalized communities. This legislative move faced strong opposition, with petitions filed challenging the constitutionality of the enhanced quotas, leading to the current judicial review.

Constitutionality of the Reservation Increase:

The court meticulously reviewed the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2023, and the Bihar Reservation (in Admission to Educational Institutions) Amendment Act, 2023. It found these amendments to be unconstitutional. The bench emphasized that the enhancement of reservations beyond the 50% limit is not permissible under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, which speak to the principles of “adequate representation” rather than “proportionate representation.”

Importance of Adequate Representation:

The court highlighted that adequate representation is central to both Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The bench noted, “Reservations should not exceed 50%, barring extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and its people, such as far-flung and remote areas.” The court underscored that Bihar does not fall into such exceptional circumstances.

Absence of Detailed Analysis:

The judgment criticized the Bihar government for failing to conduct an in-depth analysis of the caste survey data. “There was no scientific analysis conducted nor was any expert appointed to make analysis of the data collected,” the court observed. The court pointed out that the state’s decision was primarily based on the proportion of population and not on a rational and objective analysis of adequate representation.

The court extensively referenced the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which set the 50% ceiling for reservations. It reiterated, “The rule of 50% limit in reservation applies to the Backward Classes, Scheduled Caste, and Scheduled Tribes, which is equally applicable under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4).”

The bench noted that the ceiling could only be breached in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in Bihar. The judgment also referenced subsequent Supreme Court rulings, including M. Nagaraj v. Union of India and Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, to emphasize that any departure from the 50% rule requires extraordinary justification.

Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran remarked, “The enhancement of reservations beyond the 50% limit is bad in law based on the principles of equality emanating from the Constitution, as laid down by the wealth of precedents discussed in this judgment.”

Justice Harish Kumar added, “The reservation policy must ensure efficiency in administration while enabling reparations by way of affirmative action. The current amendments do not meet this constitutional balance.”

The Patna High Court’s decision sends a strong message regarding the constitutional limits on reservations. By invalidating the Bihar government’s attempt to enhance reservation quotas, the judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s role in maintaining the delicate balance between affirmative action and the principles of equality. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future policies on reservations in India, ensuring that any deviations from the established ceiling are well-justified and exceptional.

 

Date of Decision: 20-06-2024

Gaurav Kumar & Ors. V. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Latest Legal News