Challenging Bihar’s 65% Reservation Amendment: Legal Grounds, PIL, & Supreme Court Prospects
Introduction
- In a consequential legal development, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been presented before the Patna High Court, Gaurav Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (CWJC-16760/2023), challenging the recent legislative amendments introduced by the Bihar Legislature. These amendments, as outlined in the Bihar Reservation (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Back Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2023, and the Bihar (in admission in Educational Institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, seek to elevate the reservation quotas for Backward Classes, Extremely Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes from the existing cap of 50% to a proposed 65%.
- This legal challenge, brought forth by petitioners Gaurav Kumar and Naman Sherstra, questions the constitutional validity of these key enactments, asserting that they violate the principles enshrined in Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The petitioners were urgently seeking a stay on the implementation of these legislative changes, which the Bihar State Legislature officially passed on November 10, 2023, and received the Governor's Assent on November 18, 2023. The acts were formally notified on 21 November 2023, through the Bihar Gazette.
- Central to the heart of the petition's argument is the contention that the amendments are rooted in proportional reservation figures derived from the Caste Census conducted by the State. This census, aimed at gauging the population of Backward Classes (SC, ST, OBC, and EBC) in the State of Bihar, revealed a figure of 63.13%. However, the petitioners, Gaurav Kumar and Naman Sherstra, vehemently maintain that the Constitutional mandate, as articulated in Article 16(4), necessitates reservations to ensure adequate representation of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, rather than merely proportional representation of these classes within a specific state.
- The petition advances this perspective, stating, "Hence, the 2023 Act passed by the Respondent State violates Article 16(1) of the Indian Constitution, which provides an equal opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State, and Article 15(1), which prohibits any kind of discrimination."
Arguments Submitted
- The petition contends that the 2023 Acts transgress the upper reservation ceiling of 50%, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Indira Sawhney. The petition argues that the Respondent State has inadequately addressed any exceptional circumstances that might justify an increase in the reservation ceiling beyond 50%. Consequently, the 2023 Acts are posited as directly violating the legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment. Additionally, the petition asserts that these legislative changes contravene Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution of India, as they allegedly exhibit unreasonableness and manifest arbitrariness.
- The linchpin of the petitioners' argument is the reliance on the Caste Census conducted by the State to determine the proportional representation of Backward Classes. The census, indicating a population figure of 63.13% for Backward Classes, serves as the foundational basis for the legislative amendments. However, Gaurav Kumar and Naman Sherstra contend that such a statistical approach, while seemingly rational, contravenes the spirit of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. They argue that the emphasis should be on ensuring adequate representation for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, transcending the confines of a mere proportional representation within the State's demographic makeup.
- In articulating their perspective, the petitioners highlight the constitutional infirmity of the 2023 Act, asserting that it violates Article 16(1) and Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. Article 16(1) guarantees equal opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State, emphasizing a meritocratic and non-discriminatory approach. The petition contends that by tethering reservation quotas solely to population statistics, the State is compromising the foundational principles of equality and non-discrimination. This argument gains further traction when viewed in conjunction with Article 15(1), which explicitly prohibits any form of discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The petitioners posit that the amendments, by relying on proportional representation, inadvertently lead to a form of discrimination that undermines the constitutional guarantees of equality.
- Moreover, the petition challenged the constitutional legitimacy of the amendments by evoking the landmark judgment in the case of Indira Sawhney. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its ruling, had set a cap of 50% on reservations, emphasizing the need for a balance between affirmative action and the principle of meritocracy. The petitioners argued that the 2023 Acts, by breaching this ceiling and elevating reservations to 65%, run afoul of the legal precedent established by the apex court. The Respondent State, as per the petition, has failed to provide a compelling justification for such a deviation from the established norm. The absence of clear and convincing reasons to exceed the 50% limit, as enunciated in the Indira Sawhney case, forms a critical plank of the petitioners' argument against the constitutional validity of the amendments.
- In addition to challenging the quantitative aspect of the amendments, the petition asserts that the 2023 Amendments exhibit unreasonableness and manifest arbitrariness, thereby violating the constitutional guarantees of Article 14 and Article 15. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on various grounds. The petitioners argue that the lack of a rational nexus between the increase in reservation quotas and any demonstrable state interest renders the amendments arbitrary and unreasonable. This line of argumentation seeks to demonstrate that the amendments, by deviating from established legal norms and precedents, undermine the core principles of justice, equality, and non-arbitrariness embedded in the Constitution of India.
- Conversely, the State of Bihar defended the amendments, claiming that raising the reservation quotas was necessary to provide equal opportunities to socially and educationally backward classes. According to the State, the amendments were a constitutional exercise of power to redress historical wrongs and ensure equitable growth.
Court's Verdict
- Upon due consideration of the submissions made, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court decided in favor of the petitioners. Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran, pronouncing the judgment, underlined that reservations are an essential instrument of social justice. Still, any increase above 50% would disproportionately affect the rights of other deserving candidates and defeat the principles of meritocracy and equality enshrined in the Constitution. The Court held both the Bihar Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, to be ultra vires and struck it down with retrospective effect.
Conclusion
Although the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, the outcome of this legal challenge will have far-reaching implications not only for the State of Bihar but also for the broader discourse on reservation policies in India. It has the potential to shape the contours of future legislative approaches to affirmative action, influencing the delicate balance between providing opportunities for marginalized communities and upholding the principles of equality and non-discrimination. As the judiciary undertakes the responsibility of adjudicating this matter, it faces the intricate task of harmonizing constitutional ideals with the imperatives of social justice, navigating the complex terrain of reservation policies in a diverse and pluralistic society. The legal journey ahead promises to be a pivotal chapter in India's ongoing quest for a just and equitable society. For legal assistance, contact us.
