20/06/2024
Patna High Court sets aside Bihar laws raising reservation for SC/STs, Backward Classes to 65%
The Patna High Court on Thursday set aside the amendments passed by the Bihar legislature in 2023 to increase the reservation for Backward Classes, Extremely Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) from 50 percent to 65 percent.
A division bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar passed the ruling on a batch of petitions that had challenged the enactments as violative of equal opportunity for citizens in matters of employment and education.
The Court set aside the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2023 and The Bihar (In admission in Educational Institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023 as ultra vires the constitution and violative of equality clause under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
The legislature had in 2023 amended the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 after taking note of the data that revealed that members of SC/ST and other backward classes were still comparatively less in proportion in government service.
Accordingly, the reservation for the reserved category was increased to 65 percent. The decision reduced the space for those from open merit category to 35 percent.
In the ruling today, the Court said the caste survey report relied upon by the State itself revealed that backward communities were adequately represented in public employment, by virtue of reservation and also merit.
It opined that the same was an indication of one or other caste or community having reaped the benefits of reservation and the various beneficial welfare schemes implemented by the State in achieving an element of social capital.
“There is no requirement for an enhancement of reservations, as adequate representation now exists and there is no valid ground for breach of 50% rule; which in any way is not permissible,” the Court thus said.
In fact, the Court said the State should introspect on the reservation percentage within the 50 percent limit and exclude the ‘creamy layer’ from the benefits.
However, the Court clarified that it was only observing so and not issuing any direction.
“In revisiting the percentage of reservation, the State should look into and objectively analyze as to which of the castes or communities within the OBC & EBC have more representation and which of them are more likely to be appointed on merit. This would give an indication of which of the casts or communities have in the past years reaped the benefits of the affirmative action and the beneficial schemes implemented for the upliftment of the poor and the marginalized,” it added.
The Court also noted that reservations can exceed the 50 percent in exceptional cases but only in respect of far flung and remote areas.
The inhabitants of such areas, who remain out of the mainstream of national life and the conditions peculiar and characteristic to them, could lead to different treatment being meted out to them, even justifying a breach of the 50% rule, it observed while relying on the decisions of Supreme Court.
However, with regard to Bihar, the Court said there were no such extenuating circumstances.
“The Caste Survey, on the contrary, definitely paints a different picture from what was argued, insofar as the adequate representation in public employment. The State of Bihar is neither a far flung or remote area nor is it out of the mainstream of national life making an overbreadth of the 50% limit an imperative measure,” it added.
The Court also questioned State’s analysis of the data collected in the Caste Survey.
“There was no scientific analysis conducted nor was any expert appointed to make analysis of the data collected. An expert’s views or a reference to a legally constituted Commission, we have held, is not essential in every such exercise. What worries us is the fact of no such exercise or analysis having been done by the Government or the Legislature in bringing about the Amendment Acts,“ it said.
It further observed that merit cannot be sacrificed completely when ensuring the participation of groups of people who were long deprived of any role in the administration.
“It is to break the stranglehold hold of a few at the expense and to the detriment of the many, that reservation to backward classes was envisaged. But merit cannot be completely effaced and sacrificed at the altar of reparations. This was the principle on which the 50% limit was laid down for reservations,” the Court said.
Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Amit Srivastava, Mrigank Mauli, Sanjay Singh, P N Shahi and Mrigank Mauli with Advocates Abhinav Srivastava, Pawan Reley, Neeraj Gupra, Akshay Lodhi, Alok Abhinav, Nrupal A Dingankar, Rajat Kumar, Brahmanand Kumar, Naman Sherstra, Shyam Kishore, Riwaz Rai, Devesh Kumar, Madhav Gupta, Vishal Sinha, Alok Kumar; Nirbhay Prashant; Samir Kumar, Sanket, Smriti Singh, Sauravh Singh, Navin Kumar Singh; Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary; Dinu Kumar, Ritika Rani, Vardaan Mangalam; Rudrank Shivam Singh, Bandana Singh, Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary; Amit Anand, Deeksha Singh, Vishal Kumar, Deep Shekhar, Ankur Govind, Raghvendra Kumar and Sanjay Kumar represented the petitioners.
Petitioners Gaurav Kumar and Vikas Kumar appeared in person.
Advocate General PK Shahi with advocates Vikas Kumar, Amish Kumar, Manish Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar and R Ranjan represented the State of Bihar.
Senior Advocates Janardan Pd Singh and advocates Rana Vikram Singh and Rajiv Ranjan Kr Pandey also appeared in the matter for respondents.
Additional Solicitor General Dr KN Singh with Advocates Kumar Priya Ranjan, Sandeep Kumar and Vibhuti Kumar represented the Union of India.
Senior Advocate YV Giri with advocates Pranav Kumar, Shrishti Singh and Devashish Giri represented the intervener.
