Bengaluru: In a setback to the state govt, Karnataka high court Monday struck down as “constitutionally impermissible” the law that raised overall reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to 56% against the 50% ceiling laid down by Supreme Court.A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha ruled Section 3 of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointment of Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 2022, was unconstitutional as it pushed total reservation beyond 50%, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The bench also struck down Section 4 of the Act for violating Articles 14 and 16.The law, which was pushed into effect during the BJP govt led by Basavaraj Bommai, increased reservation for SCs from 15% to 17% and for STs from 3% to 7%, while the quota for backward classes remained at 32%.The verdict came on petitions filed by Raichur-based social worker Mahendra Kumar Mitra and HR Sagar and two others.One of the key grounds for striking down the law was the state govt’s failure to consult the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes before enacting the legislation.The bench observed that reservation policy was a major policy matter and consultation with the two constitutional bodies was mandatory under Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) of the Constitution. Merely writing to the commissions after the law had been enacted could not be treated as meaningful consultation, it said.The court noted that the letters relied on by the state govt were dated Dec 10, 2025, and Jan 20, 2026 — nearly three years after the Act was enacted and after its validity had been challenged before the high court.The bench rejected the argument that the findings of Justice H N Nagamohandas Commission justified exceeding the 50% reservation ceiling. While the commission’s conclusion that certain communities remained marginalised and had not adequately benefited from reservation could support a case for internal reservation, it did not justify breaching the overall ceiling, the court said.The bench reiterated that the 50% rule was intended to strike a balance between affirmative action under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and the principles of equality under Articles 15(1) and 16(1).The court had clarified that appointments arising from recruitment processes already underway would remain subject to the final outcome of the cases. Appointment and promotion letters were required to expressly state this condition, and candidates could not claim any equitable rights if the enhanced reservation was ultimately struck down.
