The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Centre and the Bihar government in response to a petition filed by the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), challenging the Patna High Court’s decision to strike down the state’s amended reservation laws. The amendments, passed by Bihar’s bicameral legislature in November 2022, aimed to raise reservation quotas for Dalits, tribals, and backward classes from 50% to 65%, sparking legal and political debates.
The Supreme Court’s bench, comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, reviewed the arguments presented by senior advocate P Wilson, who represented the RJD. Wilson underscored the urgency of addressing the plea, given its implications for affirmative action policies in the state. After hearing the arguments, the bench issued notices to the Centre and Bihar, tagging the petition with other pending cases on similar issues related to reservation.
This legal battle traces its roots back to the Patna High Court’s ruling on June 20, 2024, which deemed the Bihar amendments unconstitutional, citing the violation of the “equality clause” in the Constitution. The court argued that Bihar had overstepped the 50% cap on reservations set by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1992 Indra Sawhney case, also known as the Mandal Commission judgment. The Indra Sawhney case firmly established a ceiling of 50% on reservations, asserting that any breach would disrupt the balance of merit and equality in public employment and educational admissions.
The amendments, which were introduced through two key laws—the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2023, and the Bihar (in admission in educational institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023—sought to increase reservations based on the findings of a caste survey. This survey revealed that Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) comprised 63% of Bihar’s population, while Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) accounted for over 21%. The Bihar government introduced these amendments in response to this data, arguing that the existing 50% quota was inadequate to address the socio-economic disparities faced by these communities.
The high court, however, rejected the state’s reasoning, stating that population figures alone do not justify the need to exceed the 50% reservation limit. It emphasized that any such move required substantial legal backing and compliance with constitutional mandates. The Bihar government’s decision to push for increased reservations came after the Centre declined to include caste categories other than SCs and STs in its national census, leaving Bihar to conduct its own caste survey. The last nationwide data on caste was collected in 1931, and since then, there have been growing calls from regional political parties and social justice advocates for updated figures to inform policy decisions.
More Read
The RJD, a key political player in Bihar, swiftly moved to challenge the high court’s ruling, viewing the amendments as vital for correcting historical injustices faced by marginalized communities. The party has consistently advocated for caste-based reservations to be aligned with contemporary population dynamics, arguing that affirmative action must reflect the current socio-economic realities.
The Supreme Court had previously, on July 29, 2024, declined to stay the Patna High Court’s verdict while hearing ten related petitions, but it agreed to examine the Bihar government’s appeal. The legal tussle has once again spotlighted the contentious issue of reservation policies in India, particularly in the context of caste-based affirmative action.
This case holds significant implications for the broader national debate on reservations. While proponents of the amendments argue that they are necessary to ensure fair representation for historically marginalized communities, critics warn that exceeding the 50% limit could lead to a dilution of merit-based opportunities and open the door to further demands for increased quotas in other states.
As the Supreme Court considers the legal merits of the Bihar amendments, the case is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the future of reservation policies across India. The court’s final judgment could either reinforce the 50% ceiling set by Indra Sawhney or create new legal precedents for states seeking to revise their reservation frameworks based on changing population patterns and socio-political demands.
