Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

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.

Similar News