The Karnataka High Court has 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 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2023) to the extent it increases reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) from 15% to 17% and for Scheduled Tribes (STs) from 3% to 7%, thereby raising aggregate reservation from 50% to 56%. The Court held that such increase breaches the 50% ceiling rule firmly established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and is not saved by the purported extraordinary circumstances relied upon by the State.
Background & Facts
Historical Reservation Framework
In the erstwhile State of Mysore, reservation in favour of SCs and STs was tentatively fixed at 15% and 3% respectively by Government Order No. GAD (OM) 46 GRR 57 dated 04.02.1958, pending collection of data. These percentages remained unchanged thereafter. Government Order No. SWD 225 BCA 2000 dated 30.03.2002 provided for reservation in favour of various categories aggregating to 50%, namely, 15% for SCs, 3% for STs and 32% for other backward classes classified into Category-I, Category-II(A), Category-II(B), Category-III(A) and Category-III(B).
Genesis of the Challenged Legislation
- 17.07.2015: A Division Bench of the High Court disposed of W.P. Nos. 16852-16854/2015 (GM-RES-PIL) filed by the Nayaka Student Federation seeking an increase in ST reservation from 3% to 7%. The Court granted liberty to petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka (GoK), and requested the Chief Secretary to consider the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within six months.
- 22.07.2019: By Reference Order No. SWD 303 PV Y 2015 dated 22.07.2019, the GoK appointed a Commission headed by Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das, a former Judge of the Court, to procure empirical data for considering the demand for increased reservation in favour of SCs and STs. The said Commission submitted its report on 02.07.2020 [Nagamohan Das Commission Report], recommending, inter alia, that reservation for SCs be increased to 17% and for STs to 7%.
- 10.03.2021: The GoK constituted a High Level Committee chaired by Justice Subhash B. Adi, a former Judge of the Court, by Government Order No. SWD 84 STP 2021 dated 10.03.2021. One reference made to the said Committee was to indicate the modalities/steps for implementation of the Nagamohan Das Commission Report. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act records that the said Committee submitted its report on 06.07.2022. The report placed on record [Adi Committee Report] is captioned “On Enhancement of Reservation For Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in State of Karnataka” dated 17.06.2023.
- 23.10.2022: The Governor of Karnataka promulgated the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Ordinance, 2022 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 07 of 2022), which was brought into force with effect from 01.11.2022.
- 28.12.2022: Consequent to the Ordinance, the GoK issued the Government Order dated 28.12.2022, prescribing the roster points for direct recruitment to the civil services in the State. In terms of the clarification annexed to the said Government Order, 56% of the posts were reserved for reserved categories, leaving 44% for the general category.
- 11.01.2023: The Ordinance was replaced by the Act, which received the assent of the Governor on 11.01.2023 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) on 12.01.2023. In terms of Section 1(2) of the Act, the Act is deemed to have come into force with effect from 01.11.2022. Section 8 of the Act repeals the Ordinance, while saving anything done or any action taken thereunder.
Impugned Notification and Litigation
- 26.02.2024: The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued a notification inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Gazetted Probationers (Group-A and Group-B) in various departments of the State, under the Karnataka Gazetted Probationers (Recruitment through Competitive Examination) Rules, 1997. The classification of vacancies provided for reservation to the extent of 56% of the posts, in terms of the Government Order dated 28.12.2022.
- 13.03.2024: The KPSC issued the impugned notification inviting online applications from eligible candidates for Group-B posts in various departments, including 92 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) (Division-1) in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The classification of the said 92 posts showed 51 posts (approximately 55.4%) reserved for backward classes (including SCs and STs) and only 41 posts available for selection on general merit.
- 28.05.2025: The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), in Application No. 2144/2024, set aside the notification dated 26.02.2024 and the Government Order dated 28.12.2022, holding that the Government Order was only an executive order without legislative strength, no rules had been framed under the Act for giving effect to increased reservation, and the 56% reservation was contrary to the law laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister.
- 31.07.2025: By an order dated 31.07.2025, the KPSC was permitted to continue with the selection process subject to the condition that it shall not publish the final select list or issue orders of appointment without the leave of this Court.
- 19.11.2025: By an interim order dated 19.11.2025, this Court restrained the respondents from implementing the increase in reservation in terms of the Act.
- 27.11.2025: On an application (I.A. No. 8/2025) filed by the State seeking vacation of the interim order, the Court modified the same and directed that no further notifications for recruitment or appointment on the basis of increased reservation would be issued till the disposal of the present petitions. Recruitment processes already commenced were permitted to proceed subject to the condition that any appointment made would be subject to the final outcome of the present petitions.
- 09.09.2026: By an order dated 09.09.2026, the Court reserved orders in W.P.Nos. 200448/2025 and 25515/2025, in which arguments were heard in respect of the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act.
- 12.10.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Parties and Relief Sought
WP No. 200448/2025 (SC-ST-PIL):
- Petitioner: Mahendra Kumar Mitra (appearing in person), State President, Dr. Ambedkar Scheduled Castes Federation, Raichur.
- Respondents: 1) Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; 2) National Commission for Scheduled Castes; 3) State of Karnataka (represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs); 4) State of Karnataka (represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department).
- Relief sought: Quashing of Notification No. DPAL 29 SHASHANA 2022 dated 12-01-2023 issued by the Third Respondent (State of Karnataka, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs) as contained in Annexure-B-1.
WP No. 25515/2025 (S-RES):
- Petitioners: 1) Sagar H.R. (residing at Vidyanagar, Tiptur, Tumakuru); 2) Prajwal Kumar D. (residing at Vijayanagar 2nd Stage, Mysore); 3) Purushotham Gowda G.M. (residing near Akshay Bhandar, Mysuru).
- Respondents: 1) State of Karnataka (represented by Chief Secretary); 2) Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms; 3) Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department; 4) Karnataka Public Service Commission (represented by its Secretary); 5) Chief Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.
- Relief sought: Declaration that Act No. 1/2023 - The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointments or Posts in Services under the State) Act, 2022 is ultra vires and unconstitutional insofar as it increases reservation from 15% to 17% for SCs and 3% to 7% for STs in appointments or posts in services under the State.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the increase in reservation for Scheduled Castes from 15% to 17% and for Scheduled Tribes from 3% to 7% under 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, thereby raising aggregate reservation from 50% to 56%, is constitutionally permissible in light of the 50% ceiling rule established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India for reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the 50% ceiling on reservation is a fundamental principle of equality firmly established by judicial precedent, not merely a rule of prudence. They relied on M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India to argue that reservation must be confined to a minority of seats to maintain balance with the equality of opportunity guarantee under Article 16(1). The petitioners asserted that the Nagamohan Das Commission Report, Adi Committee Report and Ratnaprabha Committee Report failed to justify exceeding the 50% limit as they focused on intra-group disparities among SCs/STs rather than inadequate representation compared to other castes in the State. They pointed to data from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics showing SC representation in State Civil Services at 18.65% and ST representation at 5.05%, which already exceeds the prescribed reservation of 15% for SCs and 3% for STs, thereby negating claims of inadequate representation. The petitioners further argued that the policy of reservation was formulated without consulting the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes as required under clauses (9) of Articles 338 and 338A of the Constitution, citing B. Narayana v. Government of A.P. and Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal to support that non-consultation renders legislation void. They emphasized that no extraordinary circumstances existed to justify breaching the 50% limit, referencing judgments where similar enhancements were set aside for lack of objective justification, and noted that the Act’s applicability to public undertakings and corporations lacked supporting data.
For the Respondent/State
The State argued that the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which introduced reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) under Articles 15(6) and 16(6), has obliterated the 50% rule for reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). It contended that since EWS reservation reduces the pool available for backward classes from 100% to 90%, applying the 50% limit to the total seats would effectively allow backward classes to claim more than 50% of their eligible pool. The State maintained that Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) do not apply to State legislation, as enacting laws falls under Articles 245 and 246 read with Entry No. 41, List II, Schedule 7 of the Constitution, and thus consultation with National Commissions is not required. It asserted that communication with the Commissions after the Act’s enactment satisfied any consultation requirement, and that the Act, being beneficial legislation, enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, placing the burden on petitioners to disprove it. The State further argued that the scope of judicial review in such matters is extremely limited, citing M. Nagaraj v. Union of India to contend that the State had satisfied the requirement of providing quantifiable data through the Nagamohan Das Commission Report, Adi Committee Report and Ratnaprabha Committee Report regarding backwardness, inadequate representation and administrative efficiency. It relied on judgments such as Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India and Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Society of India v. Union of India to support the presumption of constitutionality, and contended that petitioners had not discharged their burden to challenge the enactment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by tracing the evolution of the 50% ceiling rule from M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore through Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and subsequent decisions. It emphasized that Indra Sawhney authoritatively held that reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) must not exceed 50%, stating: “From the above discussion, the irresistible conclusion that follows is that the reservations contemplated in clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%.” The Court clarified that while the 50% rule admits of an exception for extraordinary situations, this exception is narrow and requires objective quantification, not merely subjective state opinion. It referenced Indra Sawhney paragraphs 810-811, noting that relaxation may become imperative only in far-flung and remote areas where populations are out of the mainstream of national life due to peculiar conditions, and even then, extreme caution must be exercised.
The Court found that the reports relied upon by the State - the Nagamohan Das Commission Report, Adi Committee Report and Ratnaprabha Committee Report - failed to meet the required standards for justifying a breach of the 50% limit. It observed that these reports focused on disparities inter-se within SCs and STs (e.g., literacy rates among sub-castes) rather than assessing whether SCs/STs as a group are inadequately represented compared to other castes in the State. The Court specifically noted: “He contended that although it was stated that a special case was made out for increasing the reservation of SCs upto 17% and for STs to 7%, the recommendations were misdirected as the report did not refer to a case for breaching the rule of 50% reservation.” Furthermore, the Court highlighted data showing SC representation in State Civil Services at 18.65% and ST representation at 5.05%, which exceeds the prescribed reservation of 15% for SCs and 3% for STs, directly contradicting the claim of inadequate representation.
On the consultation requirement, the Court held that Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) mandate consultation with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes in matters of major policy affecting SCs/STs. It referred to B. Narayana v. Government of A.P. and Supreme Court decisions in Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal to state that non-consultation renders legislation void. The Court found that the policy was formulated without such consultation, as the preamble of the Act referred only to the Nagamohan Das Commission Report without indicating any reference to the National Commissions.
Regarding the 103rd Amendment, the Court relied on Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India to clarify that the 50% ceiling continues to apply to reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4), and cannot be overstretched to reservations for an entirely different class like EWS. It stated: “In another view of the matter, the prescription of the ceiling limit of fifty per cent, being apparently for the benefit of general merit candidates, does not provide any justified cause to the candidates standing in the bracket of already available reservation to raise any grievance about extra ten per cent reservation for the benefit of another section of society in need of affirmative action.” The Court concluded that the State failed to establish extraordinary circumstances justifying the breach of the 50% limit, as mere subjective opinion on broad parameters does not constitute an extraordinary situation. It emphasized that breaching the 50% limit would effectively undermine the principle of equality, one of the foundational values of the Constitution.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded in their challenge. The Court declared 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 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2023) ultra vires the Constitution to the extent it increases reservation for Scheduled Castes from 15% to 17% and for Scheduled Tribes from 3% to 7%, thereby raising aggregate reservation from 50% to 56%. Consequently, the reservation for Scheduled Castes shall remain at 15% and for Scheduled Tribes at 3%, maintaining aggregate reservation at 50%. The impugned notification dated 13.03.2024 issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission for recruitment to 92 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) (Division-1) in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike is also affected by this ruling, and the State is directed to frame fresh notifications in accordance with law. No specific monetary compensation, interest rates or compliance timelines were granted as the relief sought was limited to constitutional invalidity of the enactment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
The 50% Ceiling Remains a Binding Constitutional Principle
The judgment reaffirms that the 50% limit on reservation for SCs/STs under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is not a mere guideline but a constitutionally entrenched principle of balance. Practitioners must now argue that any legislative attempt to exceed this limit requires rigorous justification under the extraordinary circumstances exception, which demands objective, quantifiable data demonstrating backwardness, inadequate representation compared to other castes (not just internal disparities), and preservation of administrative efficiency. Mere reliance on population proportions or internal committee reports focusing on sub-group differences will not suffice.
Consultation with National Commissions is Mandatory
The Court clarified that Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) of the Constitution require consultation with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes before enacting reservation legislation that affects these communities. This consultation cannot be substituted by post-enactment communication or reliance on State-level committees. Failure to consult renders the legislation vulnerable to being struck down as void, irrespective of the merits of the policy. Lawyers advising State governments must ensure this consultation occurs at the policy formulation stage, not as an afterthought.
Data Must Show Inadequate Representation Compared to Other Castes
The judgment underscores that claims of inadequate representation must be backed by data showing SC/ST under-representation relative to other castes in the State’s services or educational institutions, not merely by literacy or socio-economic data within the SC/ST community. Existing data indicating SC representation at 18.65% and ST representation at 5.05% in State Civil Services - which exceeds the prescribed 15% and 3% reservation - negates any claim of inadequate representation. Practitioners challenging reservation increases must present such comparative data to demonstrate that the prescribed limits are already being met or exceeded.
EWS Reservation Does Not Affect the SC/ST 50% Limit
The Court expressly rejected the argument that the 103rd Amendment’s introduction of EWS reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) obliterates the 50% rule for SC/ST reservations. It held that Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India clarified that the 50% ceiling applies specifically to reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4), and cannot be extended to EWS reservations. Thus, the pool available for SC/ST reservations remains the total seats/posts, not 90% thereof, and the 50% limit continues to operate as a check on SC/ST quota increases.
