On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to stay the Patna HC's ruling on Bihar's 65% reservation, a significant legal development that affects public employment and educational institution admissions in the state. This ruling means that the Bihar government's policy to increase reservation quotas for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes will remain suspended until the court hears the state’s appeal in September against the Patna High Court’s decision.

Legal Controversy and Implications

The controversy surrounding Bihar's 65% reservation began with the Patna High Court’s ruling on June 20, 2024. The court invalidated the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (Amendment) Act, 2023, and The Bihar (In Admission in Educational Institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023. These legislative amendments sought to increase the reservation quota from 50% to 65%, which would push the total reservation in Bihar to an unprecedented 75%.

Bihar's 65% reservation
Image Source: Gondawana University

The Patna High Court’s decision was based on the assertion that these laws violated key constitutional provisions: Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment). The court argued that the expanded reservation quota exceeded the legislative authority and constituted discriminatory practices against non-reserved categories.

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, decided not to stay the high court’s ruling, a decision that keeps Bihar's 65% reservation policy in legal limbo. The Chief Justice highlighted that 68% of state employment already comprises individuals from reserved categories, emphasizing the complexity of balancing reservation policies with constitutional mandates.

The Supreme Court’s decision to maintain the status quo until the appeal is heard underscores the contentious nature of reservation policies in India. The case highlights the tension between state legislative powers and constitutional limits on reservation quotas, with implications for similar policies across the country.

Bihar Government’s Defense and Arguments

In defense of its reservation policy, the Bihar government has argued that the legislation was based on a comprehensive caste survey and a report on socio-economic conditions. According to the state government, the high court’s ruling failed to consider the socio-economic context and the need for enhanced representation of marginalized communities.

Following the caste survey, Bihar's reservation quotas were revised: Scheduled Castes were allocated 20%, Scheduled Tribes 2%, Extremely Backward Classes 25%, and Other Backward Classes 18%. The Bihar government contended that these adjustments were necessary to address historical underrepresentation and to ensure equitable opportunities for all communities.

The state’s legal team argued that the reservation policy adhered to the parameters set by the Supreme Court’s 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment, which established the 50% ceiling for reservations. Bihar’s administration claimed that their policy was a justified exception, given the unique socio-economic conditions revealed by the caste survey.

The Bihar government also criticized the high court for overlooking the legislative intent behind the increased reservation. The state maintained that the policy aimed to provide “adequate representation” rather than merely exceeding the reservation ceiling. This argument reflects the Bihar administration’s commitment to addressing socio-economic disparities through legislative measures.

Despite these defences, the Patna High Court ruled that the existing reservation quotas were already sufficient. The court’s decision reflected a belief that the proposed increase was unwarranted and that the reserved categories were adequately represented in public employment and educational institutions.

Broader Implications and Future Developments

The Supreme Court’s forthcoming review of Bihar's 65% reservation will be closely monitored for its potential impact on reservation policies nationwide. The case raises important questions about the limits of state legislative authority and the balance between providing adequate representation and adhering to constitutional limits on reservations.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the appeal, the outcome will likely influence future legislative decisions on reservation policies in other states. The legal principles established in this case could set a precedent for how states manage reservation quotas and ensure compliance with constitutional mandates.

In conclusion, the refusal of the Supreme Court to stay Bihar's 65% reservation ruling keeps the debate alive and underscores the complexities of balancing reservation policies with constitutional provisions. The case will test the boundaries of legislative authority and constitutional limits, with potential ramifications for similar policies across India. The legal and political implications of this ruling will continue to shape the discourse on reservation policies and their impact on social equity and justice.

You might also be interested in: ”Made in Bihar” goes global: Hajipur co. manufactures boots for Russian Army