Karnataka HC Strikes Down SC/ST Quota Hike: 50% Ceiling

🗞️ Why in News On 12 October 2026, a bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K S Hemalekha of the Karnataka High Court struck down the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 2022 that raised reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) to 17% and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to 7%. With the 32% for other backward classes unchanged, total reservation had gone from 50% to 56%, past the 50% ceiling of Indra Sawhney (1992). Section 3 (education) falls only insofar as it takes the total beyond 50%; Section 4 (State services) is struck down in full. The State says it will examine its legal remedies, including an appeal.

The Ruling at a Glance

The operative order, as reported by Bar & Bench and LawChakra: “Section 3 of the Act, insofar as it takes the aggregate reservation beyond the ceiling of 50%, is struck down as it violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Section 4 of the Act is also struck down as unconstitutional, as it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”

How the Case Got Here

• The Act: it received the Governor’s assent on 11 January 2023, was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 12 January 2023, and was deemed to have come into force from 1 November 2022.
• The petitioners: Mahendra Kumar Mitra, State President of the Dr Ambedkar Scheduled Castes Federation, who appeared in person, and three civil engineering graduates (Sagar H R, Prajwal Kumar D and Purushotham Gowda G M) who had applied for Assistant Engineer (Civil) posts in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
• The State’s evidence: the reports of the Nagamohan Das Commission, the Adi Committee and the Ratnaprabha Committee.
• The hearing: judgment was reserved on 9 September and delivered on 12 October 2026, LawChakra reports.

How the Court Tested the Act

The State argued that more than 90% of Karnataka’s population are SCs, STs and other backward classes, and that reservation should reflect their share of the population. The Court measured that claim against the rule of Indra Sawhney: 50% is the limit, and only an extraordinary situation, carefully proved, can justify crossing it.

• Population is not a reason. As reported by LawChakra, the Court said: “To accept the said contention would be destructive of the principle of equality enshrined under the Constitution. The ceiling limit of 50% has to be understood as circumscribing the power of the State to provide for reservation within the said parameters, notwithstanding the numerical strength of the backward classes.”
• A small gap is not extraordinary. Also as reported by LawChakra: “A subjective opinion that the reservation in favour of any backward class should be increased marginally, by a few percentage points on the basis that the reservation provided is less than the proportion of their population, would be wholly inadequate to justify exceeding the 50% limit.”
• The services figures. On State services, Deccan Herald quotes the Court: the shortfall “(as stated, the reservation is only 18% whereas the population is 24.10%) does not present any extraordinary circumstance which would warrant an increase beyond the said limit”. (The 18% equals the old SC and ST shares in services, 15% plus 3%: our arithmetic.)
• Data is not a licence. In Bar & Bench’s account (its own words, not a quotation from the judgment), the Court held that the State’s reports “might support measures to ensure that reservation benefits reached marginalised communities, including through internal reservation, but did not by themselves establish a legal basis to exceed the overall limit”, and that quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation “did not, by itself, permit the State to breach the 50% ceiling.”
• Both kinds of quota. The ceiling, the Court held, applies equally to reservation under Article 15(4) (here, admissions) and Article 16(4) (posts).

The 50% Ceiling: Judge-Made, With One Exception

The ceiling is not written into Article 15(4) or 16(4). It comes from the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (1992). Its two key paragraphs, as quoted by the Supreme Court in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022):

“809. ... the reservations contemplated in clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%. 810. While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people ... some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out.”

Where EWS fits (background). In Janhit Abhiyan (7 November 2022), the majority (Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi and Pardiwala) upheld the 103rd Amendment, with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, joined by Chief Justice U. U. Lalit, in the minority (a 3:2 verdict). Justice Maheshwari, with Justice Trivedi agreeing, wrote that the ceiling “is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4)”. So the EWS 10% sits outside the ceiling; the ceiling itself still binds SC, ST and OBC quotas, which is the rule the Karnataka High Court applied.

For background on the same ceiling applied to an OBC quota, see our 10 October piece on the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s 27% OBC ruling, and, as context for local bodies, the 2 October piece on Andhra Pradesh’s 34% BC quota. What is new here: the quota is for SCs and STs, not OBCs, and the case raises the consultation duty and the Ninth Schedule route.

The Consultation Question: Reports Differ

Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) require the Union and every State Government to “consult the Commission on all major policy matters affecting” Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively.

• Bar & Bench and Deccan Herald report the Court as holding that reservation policy is a major policy matter, that consultation with the two commissions was mandatory, and that “Consultation, to be meaningful and effective, must precede the decision”. Deccan Herald quotes: “Merely writing a letter after enacting the Act cannot be considered as consultation as required under clause (9) of Article 338 and clause (9) of Article 338A of the Constitution.” According to Bar & Bench, the State’s letters of 10 December 2025 and 20 January 2026 came “nearly three years after the legislation was enacted and after its validity had been challenged”.
• LawChakra reports instead that “It was unnecessary to examine this ground further, the Court added, as the impugned provisions were already held to violate Articles 14, 15 and 16.”

What is settled is the operative order: the provisions fell under Articles 14, 15 and 16 and the 50% ceiling. Whether consultation was an independent ground will be clear from the judgment’s text.

The Ninth Schedule Route and Tamil Nadu’s 69%

Deputy Chief Minister G Parameshwara, PTI reported, called on the Prime Minister and the Centre “to initiate a comprehensive review of the 50 per cent reservation ceiling” and to “examine Karnataka’s request for Ninth Schedule inclusion”.

• Article 31B (inserted by the First Amendment, with effect from 18 June 1951): no law in the Ninth Schedule “shall be deemed to be void ... on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part” (Part III, Fundamental Rights).
• The Tamil Nadu model: Tamil Nadu reserves 69% (Backward Classes 30, MBCs and DNCs 20, SCs 18, STs 1). Its 1993 Act (Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994) is entry 257A of the Ninth Schedule, inserted by the 76th Amendment, with effect from 31 August 1994.
• The limit of that shield: in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (11 January 2007, nine judges), the Supreme Court held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be challenged and tested “on the touchstone of basic structure as reflected in Article 21 read with Article 14 and Article 19, Article 15 and the principles thereunder.”
• Tamil Nadu was not settled either, as of 2022. In Janhit Abhiyan (November 2022), Justice Bhat noted that the breach of the 50% limit is “the principal ground of attack” on the 76th Amendment that inserted entry 257A, in “a batch of cases pending before this court”.
• Karnataka’s 2022 Act is not in the Ninth Schedule in the Constitution’s text as on 1 May 2024.

What Happens Next

• No appeal yet. The Deputy Chief Minister said: “The Karnataka government will examine all available legal remedies, including an appeal before the Supreme Court, while ensuring that ongoing recruitment and educational opportunities are protected in accordance with the law”.
• Two other routes are political: a review of the ceiling and a request for Ninth Schedule inclusion, both addressed to the Centre. After Coelho, the second does not end judicial review.

Two Views

For the ruling. The 50% rule keeps reservation an exception that serves equality, not a share of posts by population. On the Court’s reasoning, a State that crosses the line must prove an extraordinary situation, and a few points of shortfall against population share is not one.

The State’s case. When SCs, STs and other backward classes are more than 90% of the population, a fixed 50% ceiling can look arbitrary, and Indra Sawhney itself spoke of “the great diversity of this country”. The State’s own data, the Court indicated, can still support measures such as internal reservation.

The question for the exam: should a judge-made number bind every State, or should the Indra Sawhney exception be read more widely where the data is strong?

UPSC Relevance

GS Paper 2: Indian Constitution, its features and significant provisions (Articles 14, 15, 16, 31B, 338, 338A); structure and functioning of the judiciary; mechanisms, laws and institutions for the protection of vulnerable sections.

Prelims: 50% ceiling (Indra Sawhney, paras 809-810); Article 16(4B); EWS in Articles 15(6) and 16(6); Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule; I.R. Coelho; Tamil Nadu’s 69%; State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (decided in 2024 by seven judges, 6:1), which allowed States to sub-classify SCs and STs and overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004); Article 335 (SC/ST claims to be weighed with efficiency of administration).

Mains: the 50% ceiling versus population-based demands; data, sub-classification and internal reservation; the Ninth Schedule after Coelho; consultation with constitutional commissions.

📌 Facts Corner, Knowledgepedia

Prelims, statement-ready facts:

• Karnataka High Court, 12 October 2026: bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K S Hemalekha.
• 2022 Act: SC reservation to 17%, ST to 7%; OBC 32% unchanged; total 50% → 56%.
• Section 3 (education): struck down insofar as aggregate reservation exceeds 50%; Articles 14 and 15.
• Section 4 (State services): SC 15% → 17%, ST 3% → 7%; struck down in full; Articles 14 and 16.
• Act in force: assent 11 January 2023; Gazette 12 January 2023; deemed in force from 1 November 2022.
• 50% ceiling: Indra Sawhney (1992), paras 809-810; relaxation only in “extraordinary situations”.
• Article 16(4B): the only “ceiling of fifty per cent” in the text, for carried-forward vacancies.
• EWS 10%: Articles 15(6) and 16(6), 103rd Amendment (2019); upheld in Janhit Abhiyan, 7 November 2022.
• Article 31B: Ninth Schedule laws shielded from Part III challenge; First Amendment, w.e.f. 18 June 1951.
• I.R. Coelho (11 January 2007, nine judges): Ninth Schedule laws added after 24 April 1973 face basic-structure review.
• Tamil Nadu 69%: BC 30, MBC/DNC 20, SC 18, ST 1; Ninth Schedule entry 257A (76th Amendment, w.e.f. 31 August 1994).

Prelims, the traps:

• The 50% ceiling is judge-made (Indra Sawhney); Article 16(4) itself carries no percentage.
• Section 3 is not struck down whole, only insofar as the total crosses 50%; Section 4 falls in full.
• No appeal has been filed: the State said it “will examine all available legal remedies, including an appeal”.
• Janhit Abhiyan did not lift the ceiling: it kept the EWS 10% outside the ceiling for the 15(4), 15(5), 16(4) classes.

Mains, arguments and keywords:

• Population share is not a licence: the ceiling binds “notwithstanding the numerical strength of the backward classes”.
• Data on backwardness may support internal reservation, but does not by itself permit a breach of the 50% ceiling.
• Keywords: 50% ceiling; extraordinary situations; quantifiable data; internal reservation; Ninth Schedule; basic structure.

Interview, be ready for:

• “Should reservation follow population share?” Weigh representation against equality under Articles 14, 15 and 16; Indra Sawhney asks for “a special case made out”.

Revision Flowchart

Sources:

• Bar & Bench, 12 October 2026
• LawChakra (Suresh Ajith), 12 October 2026
• Deccan Herald, 13 October 2026
• PTI via ETV Bharat, 13 October 2026
• The Hindu, 13 October 2026
• Constitution of India (Legislative Department, text as on 1 May 2024)
• Supreme Court, Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) and Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal (2022)

Source: Karnataka HC Strikes Down SC/ST Quota Hike: 50% Ceiling — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Current Affairs