Patna High Court scraps 65% reservation for backward classes in Bihar

Patna HC ruled that these reservations were ultra vires and violated the equality clause under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution

The Patna High Court on Thursday scrapped the 65 per cent reservation for backward classes, extremely backward classes (EBC), scheduled castes (SCs), and scheduled tribes (STs) in Bihar. The Court ruled that the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (Amendment) Act, 2023, and The Bihar (In Admission in Educational Institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, were ultra vires and violated the equality clause under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution.

Several states have faced challenges trying to implement quotas beyond the 50 per cent limit, including provisions for specific communities such as Jats, Marathas, and Muslims. Last year, the Punjab and Haryana High Court nullified the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020, which provided a 75 per cent reservation in Haryana industries for state residents.

50% cap on reservations

The Supreme Court, in the 1992 Indra Sawhney case, had established a 50 per cent cap on reservations, stating that exceeding this limit would undermine the principle of equality. In 2021, a five-judge Constitution bench of the SC refused to revisit this 1992 verdict. Justice Ashok Bhushan had remarked that exceeding the 50 per cent limit would lead to a society not based on equality but on caste rule and warned against the slippery slope of political pressures pushing for increased reservations.

In 2023, the Bihar legislature approved an increase in reservation for these groups from 50 per cent to 65 per cent, making the state with the highest reservation percentage among larger states, totalling 75 per cent. However, the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling stated that reservations beyond 50 per cent would violate Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality.

In March, a division bench comprising Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar reserved their judgment on a series of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of this increased quota. 

(With agency inputs)