Karnataka High Court strikes down law to increase reservation for SCs/STs, declares it unconstitutional

Published 2026-10-13 · Updated 2026-10-13 · 3 min · 507 words

UPSC CSE Context

Why in News

Karnataka High Court struck down the 2022 Act that increased SC/ST reservation beyond the 50% ceiling, declaring it unconstitutional.

Syllabus Connection

Indian Polity and Governance: reservation, affirmative action, judicial review, constitutional amendments.

Exam Relevance

Important for understanding the constitutional limits on reservation and the interplay between legislature and judiciary in social justice.

Core Issue

Karnataka HC invalidated reservation hike exceeding 50% ceiling.

Key Development

Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Act, 2022, which raised SC/ST quotas, were struck down as ultra vires.

Stakeholders

• Karnataka State Government
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
• Other Backward Classes
• Petitioners (Mahendra Kumar Mitra, Sagar H.R. and others)
• Supreme Court of India

Static Knowledge

High-Value Background

• Indra Sawhney (1992) established 50% as the ceiling for reservations, subject to exceptional circumstances.
• The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced 10% EWS reservation, which is separate from the backward class quota.

Concepts in Context

• Ultra vires: beyond the legal power or authority of the State legislature.
• Reservation ceiling: the judicially imposed limit on total reservations to preserve equality of opportunity.

Institutions and Mechanisms

• High Court of Karnataka exercised judicial review under Article 226.
• Supreme Court's binding precedents on reservation limits.

Dynamic Analysis

Constitutional/Legal

• Reinforces that the 50% ceiling is a binding constitutional principle, not a mere guideline.
• Clarifies that the EWS quota does not dilute the ceiling for backward class reservations.
• Highlights the judiciary's role in checking legislative overreach in affirmative action.
• Raises questions about the scope for states to exceed the ceiling based on exceptional circumstances.

Governance

• The retrospective application of the Act created administrative uncertainty in recruitment and admissions.
• Striking down the provisions may require revisiting selections made under the enhanced quota.
• The judgment underscores the need for states to align reservation policies with constitutional limits.

Society

• The decision may impact representation of SCs and STs in education and public employment.
• It reflects the tension between social justice demands and the principle of equality.
• Could lead to demands for constitutional amendment to revisit the 50% ceiling.

Prelims Takeaways

• Indra Sawhney case (1992) set the 50% reservation ceiling.
• 103rd Constitutional Amendment provides 10% EWS reservation.

Mains Value Addition

Arguments

• The judgment reaffirms the constitutional balance between affirmative action and equality of opportunity.
• The decision may prompt states to seek constitutional amendments to exceed the ceiling.
• It underscores the need for evidence-based justification for exceeding the 50% limit.

Examples

• Karnataka's attempt to increase SC/ST reservation to 24% (17%+7%) was struck down.

Data Points

• Karnataka's total reservation would have been 56% after the increase.
• The Act was passed in 2022 and came into force retrospectively from November 1, 2022.

Counterpoints

• The judgment may be seen as limiting state autonomy in addressing backwardness.
• There is a view that the EWS reservation itself challenges the original rationale of the ceiling.

Way Forward

• States should conduct empirical studies to justify any reservation beyond 50% under exceptional circumstances.
• Ensure transparent and timely review of reservation policies to avoid legal challenges.
• Strengthen data collection on backwardness to support evidence-based affirmative action.

Primary/reference source: thehindu.com