65% reservation banned in Bihar

Reference

Recently, the Patna High Court has quashed the notification issued by the Bihar government increasing the reservation limit from 50% to 65% in government jobs and educational institutions.

What is the 50% reservation limit

Indra Sawhney case (1992)

• The 50% cap was imposed by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgement in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India to ensure “efficiency” in administration.
• In this judgment, the Court upheld 27% reservation for the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) and established two key principles –
  • The criteria to qualify for reservation is “social and educational backwardness”;
  • It has set the limit for vertical reservation at 50%.
• This 50% limit can be breached only in “exceptional circumstances”. The Court had determined this limit on reservation in the cases of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, 1963, and Devadasan v. Union of India, 1964.

Exception:

• EWS Reservation (2019): This is the only exception at the central level which provides for 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS).
  • In November 2022, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the EWS reservation in a 3-2 verdict.
  • which said that the 50% limit is onlyApplies to SC/ST and OBC reservations and not a separate reservation,Whooperates outside the framework of 'backwardness'.
• Criticism of EWS reservation: Allowing violation of 50% rule through it may become a gateway to other violations in future, resulting in division.
• Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s speech in the Constituent Assembly is often quoted as a warning that “unconditional reservation may vitiate the principle of equality”.
• However, there is also a view that reservation is a feature of the fundamental right to equality and is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• The apex court, in its 2022 verdict upholding 27% OBC reservation in NEET, had said that “reservation is not contrary to merit but rather carries forward its distributional consequences”.

Reservation in other states

• Tamil Nadu: The 76th Amendment of the Constitution in 1994 incorporated the Tamil Nadu reservation law, which violated the 50% limit, into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.
  • The Ninth Schedule provides a “safe harbour” to the law from judicial review under Article 31A of the Constitution.
  • The laws placed in this schedule cannot be challenged as they violate any fundamental rights protected under the Constitution.
• MarathaReservation :in May 2021, A five-judge Supreme Court bench had unanimously struck down the Maharashtra law providing reservation to the Maratha community, terming it unconstitutional.
  • With the implementation of Maratha reservation, reservation in the state could have increased to 68%.
• Similar to the Maratha issue, there are the cases of Patels in Gujarat, Jats in Haryana and Kapus in Andhra Pradesh.