GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE

CHENGALPATTU

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON RESERVATION POLICY IN

INDIA – SPECIAL REFERENCE TO RESERVATION IN
KARNATAKA

NAME : Bhagavathi M

YEAR : 1st YEAR

COURSE : LL.M

SUBJECT : Law and Social Transformation

FACULTY NAME : Mrs. S.Mano

Student Signature Faculty Signature

 SYNOPSIS

Introduction

History of reservation in India

i. Reservation plan in British period

ii. Reservation in independent India

Constitutionality of reservation

Supreme Court pronouncement

Karnataka reservation

i. Reservation structure in Karnataka

ii. Caste based population
iii. Nagamohandas commission report

The karnataka sc and st (reservation) act, 2022

i. Object
ii. Methods used by karnataka government

Conclusion

Bibliography
 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE INCREASE IN
RESERVATION FOR SC AND ST IN KARNATAKA

INTRODUCTION

In India, the reservation policy is an established practice. Its origins can be traced back to the
prehistoric era, when the caste, Varna, and untouchability systems dominated society. Prior to
modern times, Hindu society was classified into four social classes, or Varnas, which were the
Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Shudras, in decreasing order of social rank. The term
untouchables, or avarna, refers to a different class of human or rather, people without a class.
Because they were viewed as unclean for society, these people were shunned by the social
structure.

They had no social rights and were required to live outside the village. In certain regions of the
nation, like Southern India, it was thought that an individual had become unclean if even their
shadow was cast on members of the higher class. They were subject to stringent rules regarding
social events and their personal lives; if they disobeyed any social standard, they would face
harsh penalties, including in certain situations, death. The harsh system of dividing society
based on standards of impurity and purity had a negative impact on the growth and
development of these lower class people1, as their labour and skill were only valued because
they belonged to a lower social class. Epics such as the Mahabharata recount numerous
incidents in which a warrior such as Karna was denied the opportunity to display his abilities
just because he was a Shudra. He was frequently called Shudra Putra and subjected to caste-
related humiliation.

The development of the Reservation Policy in India was largely prompted by the then-dominant
caste structure. Because of the frequent atrocities committed against members of that class, the
concept of granting reservations to them was born. In order to improve their social standing,
provide them with equal opportunities, put them on par with other societal segments, and
furthermore, foster development in the lower echelons of society, were the reasons for the
adoption of Reservation Policy in India.

1
Yesu Suresh Raj ET AL., An Analysis of Reservation System in India, 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
RESEARCH 1038, 1038-1039 (2015).
HISTORY OF RESERVATION IN INDIA

Reservation is the policy in India of assigning a certain percentage of seats (vacancies) in

governmental institutions to people from disadvantaged and backward communities, which are
mostly defined by caste and ethnicity. One kind of quota-based affirmative action is
reservation. Certain castes and tribes were given preference under quota systems in several
parts of British India prior to India's independence.

Reservation Plan in British Period

In 1882 and 1891, requests were made for different types of positive discrimination. John
Hunter and Jyotirao Phule suggested a caste-based reservation plan in 1882. Most of the quota
provisions that supported non-Brahmin and disadvantaged castes were established by Rajarshi
Shahu, the Maharaja of the princely State of Kolhapur, and went into effect in 1902. The first
Communal Government Order was enacted on September 16, 19212, by the first Justice Party
administration. This made them the first elected body in the history of Indian legislatures to
impose reservations, which have subsequently spread throughout the country. The Government
of India Act of 1909 established reservations, and prior to India's independence, the British Raj
implemented additional policies.

One notable one came from the British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald's suggestion of a
communal award during the June 1932 Round Table Conference. Some members, including
Gandhi, were offended by this form, and in the end, the Poona Pact was forged as a
compromise. The timeframe under discussion in the Poona discussions was not for the
termination of reservations, but rather for the referendum in which the Destitute Classes were
to determine how they would move forward with selecting their own delegates. Later, the
Poona Pact was included in the 1935 Government of India Act. Jeevan Reddy, J. statesmen of
the highest calibre from the domains of law, politics, and public life together to create a tool
for change the Constitution of India.

Reservation in Independent India

The members of the constituent assembly recognised the division of the Indian society into
four watertight compartments. The lowliest of the 4 varnas were the Shudras. Those outside
the four-tier system chaturvarnya were the outcastes Panchamas. There was to be no

2
Aakash Dubey, A Study on Reservation, 5 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW MANAGEMENT &
HUMANITIES 815, 815 (2022).
deliverance for them from this social stigma, except perhaps death.vi Reservations are
supportive of affirmative action programmes holding the members of the historically
disadvantaged groups for centuries to catch up with the standards of competition set up by a
well-advanced society. The stark grim reality of the depressed classes is that they are suffering
from social stigma and ostracism in the present-day scenario of hierarchical caste system and
thus the very object of Article 16(4) is to ensure equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment and give adequate representation to those who have been placed in a very
discontent position from time immemorial on account of sociological reasons.

The Clause (4)’s primary goal is to guarantee that the benefits flowing from this clause's
fountain are distributed to the beneficiaries, or the Backward Classes, who, in the view of the
Framers of the Constitution, would have otherwise found it difficult to enter the workforce and
compete with more advanced classes. They also could not be kept in limbo until they are
receiving benefits from positive action programmes and who have suffered and continue to
suffer from historical disabilities brought on by discrimination, disadvantage, or both.
Applicants from the downtrodden groups, such as OBC Other Backward groups, SC, and ST,
SEBC (Socially and Educationally Backward Classes) etc 3 ., who are seen by anti-
reservationists as being mediocre, would undoubtedly face bulletin headwinds if they had to
compete in an open field competition alongside candidates from more affluent communities
without receiving any preferential treatment in public services.

In addition, they would need to clear a rigorous screening process that included tests of
professional competence and aptitude. Thus, in order to promote equality of job prospects, the
State may make reservations as a remedy under Clause 4 of Article 16 in order to address the
glaring imbalance in the sphere of public employment. Reservations were previously exclusive
to S.C. and S.T. citizens after independence. OBCs were added to the list of reservations in
1991 in accordance with the Mandal Commission's recommendations, the legitimacy of which
was contested in the Indra Sawhney4 case.

Unlike the arguments surrounding the ten-year limit on political reservations, there was no
discussion regarding a time limit on reservations in public services. The First Constitutional
Amendment established the reservation policy in educational institutions one year after the
Constitution was ratified, in 1951. When the first constitutional amendment (the addition of

4
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
Article 15(4)) was being discussed, there was no reference to a time limit. The purpose of this
amendment was to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan. A constructive conversation on reservations is challenging due to selective
avoidance, confirmation bias, and biased assimilation.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RESERVATION

The Articles 14, 15, 16, 31-B, 31-C, 335, 338, 338-A, 340, 341 & 342 of the Indian Constitution
address the Reservation and Protections for Members of the Scheduled Castes and Other
Backward Classes in Public Employment. A number of Articles in Part IV of the Indian
Constitution, specifically Articles 38, 39, 39A, 41, and 46, as well as Articles 15 to 18 illustrate
the substance of Article 14's statement of equality before the law. Article 15 (4) provides for
the authority of the State to make any special provision for the advancement of SC/ST/SEBC.
This was added via the first amendment to the Constitution. Article 16 (4) provides for the
authority of the State to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in
favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately
represented in the services under the State. Following consultation with the Governor of that
State,

The President may designate certain races, tribes, castes, or subsets of those groups as Schedule
Castes with respect to a State or Union Territory by using Article 341(1). The Parliament is
legally empowered, as stated in Clause 2, to add or remove any caste, race, tribe, tribal
community, or portion of any of these from the list of Schedule Castes/Tribes that is provided
in the notification. Article 342 gives the President and Parliament identical jurisdiction with
respect to Schedule tribes. Articles 31-B and 31-C, respectively, address the Ninth Schedule
and the preservation of laws that implement specific directive principles. When appointing new
members to positions and services, the claims of SCs and STs should always be taken into
account while maintaining the effectiveness of the administrative process. Articles 338 and
338-A provide for a National Commission for SCs and STs respectively whose powers and
duties are as laid down under the respective Articles.

Their primary responsibility is to look into and keep an eye on everything related to the
protections offered to the SC/ST community. While Article 39 lays out specific policy
guidelines that the State must adhere to, Article 38 requires the State to establish a social order
in order to further the welfare of the populace. According to Article 46, the State must give
special consideration to advancing the economic and educational interests of the weakest
segments of society, especially the SCs and STs. It seeks to shield people against exploitation
in all its forms as well as social injustice. However, each caste's socioeconomic situation varies
from state to state. Therefore it would not be appropriate to designate any caste or tribe as a
Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste throughout the entire nation.

The wording in relation to that State would become meaningless if a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe member received the benefits of that status across the entire area of India.
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution prohibit any authority, including courts, from changing
or amending a Presidential order. Such authority has only been given to the Parliament 5. If a
State believes it is necessary to extend the benefit of reservation to a class or category of
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes other than those listed in the Lists for that specific State,
constitutional discipline would require the State to influence the central authority to allow for
an appropriate parliamentary exercise to be made by amending the Lists of Scheduled Castes
or Scheduled Tribes for that specific State. A State cannot take unilateral action under Article
16(4) because doing so would lead to constitutional chaos.

SUPREME COURT PRONOUNCEMENT

Reservation has, since its inception, been subject of scrutiny by the constitutional courts of
India. Two major aspects that have been under constant scrutiny with regard to reservation have
been the percentage of reservation and the criteria of reservation. In this part of the paper, we
concentrate on the percentage of reservation prescribed by the constitutional courts of this
country. As discussed earlier, reservation in India is a concept of positive affirmation in order
to compensate for the years of discrimination that SC, ST and OBCs faced over the years.
However, it is important that the reservation policy does not go against the principle of equity
enshrined in the Constitution by excessive reservation.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar too has stated that the basic principle of equality and equity should not be
tampered with when trying to cope up with the demands and requirements of the discriminated
communities. It is in this context, that the constitutional courts have examined the limit of
reservation that can be permitted for education and opportunities of public employment on the
basis of data. The Supreme Court was faced with two cases from the State of Madras as soon
as the Constitution came into effect. One of the cases were filed challenging Article 15 and the

5
Yesu Suresh Raj ET AL., An Analysis of Reservation System in India, 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
RESEARCH 1038, 1038-1039 (2015).
other Article 16 being Champakam Dorairajan 6 and Venkataraman 7 respectively. After
hearing the case, a Special Bench of seven Judges unanimously determined that the allocation
of seats solely on the basis of caste violates Articles 15(1) and 29(2). The Parliament acted
quickly and, in the exercise of its constituent power, amended Article 15 via the First
Amendment Act, 1951 by inserting Clause (4), which says: Nothing in this article or in Clause
(2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement
of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes." The first case heard by the Supreme Court after the enactment of the
First Amendment was M.R. Balaji v. The State of Mysore8 . The following principles among
others, were laid down by the Supreme Court:

1. Clause (4) of Article 15 is a proviso or an exception to Clause (1) of Article 15 and to

Clause (2) of Article 29;
2. The reservation made under Clause (4) of Article 15 should be reasonable. It should not
be such as to defeat or nullify the main Rule of Equality contained in Clause (1). While
it is not possible to predicate the exact permissible percentage of reservations, it can be
stated in a general and broad way that they should be less than 50 per cent;
3. A provision under Article 15(4) need not be in the form of legislation; it can be made
by an executive order. Thus, the Court reiterated the view of the drafters of the
Constitution that equality is the rule and protective discrimination should be used with
caution. On prescribing the limit of reservation, the Court stated that a strict rule cannot
be laid down on the limit, however it can be generally considered that not more than
50% of the opportunities should be subject to reservation.

Similarly in Rangachari9 , the Supreme Court held that what is true for Article 15(4) would
also be applicable to Article 16(4), as unreasonable, excessive or extravagant reservation would
eliminate general competition in a large field and materially affect efficiency. Reservation made
beyond the permissible and legitimate limits can be considered as a fraud on the Constitution.
Further, the Supreme Court faced a case arising under Article 16 Devadasan v. Union of India10
shortly after the M.R. Balaji v. The State of Mysore ruling. It had to decide whether the carry-
forward rule that applied to the Central Secretariat Service was still valid.

6
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, [1951] S.C.R. 525.
7
Venkataraman v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 229.
8
M.R. Balaji v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649.
9
Southern Railway vs. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 3637.
10
Devadasan v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 649
The Court in the case held that the carry forward rule also has to comply with the 50% limit.
This means that the total reservation in a year including the carry forward opportunities of
reservation shall not exceed fifty percent of the total opportunities/seats in a year. Thus, all the
aforementioned cases starting from Balaji11 adhered to the 50 percent rule. However, in N. M.
Thomas12 , the then accepted 50 percent rule was placed on an uneven footing when two judges
of the seven judges bench observed that the rule is not absolute and need not be applied in all
circumstances. Fazal Ali, J observed that the 50 percent rule is merely a ‘rule of caution’ and if
around 80 percent of a State’s population consisted of backward communities it would be
unfair to demand that the State should stick to 50% reservation. Justice Krishna Iyer, J also
supported the view, while the rest of the judges did not discuss about the limit on reservation,
thereby bringing in a different point of thought.

The reservation has always been a topic of wide interpretation, one of the landmark judgements
on reservations in India, is undoubtedly Indra Sawhney v. Union of India13. The case dealt with
a challenge to the Office Memorandums following the recommendations of the Mandal
Commission. The nine judge bench laid down several important principles of law regarding
reservation in India. Among other important aspects on the criteria and determination of
reservation in India, the Court held that the power granted by Clause (4) of Article 16 should
be used fairly and within reasonable bounds, and that the reservation under Clause (4) should
not exceed 50% of the appointments or posts, barring certain extraordinary The Court
distinguished between the concept of adequate representation and proportionate representation
and stated that clause (4) of Article 16 deals with the former14 and not the latter.

While proportionate representation would imply that representation is in line with the
population of the backward classes in a given area, adequate representation guarantees that the
backward groups are given sufficient possibilities to be represented in public employments.
The Court determined that, in terms of seat reservations in the Lok Sabha and State legislatures,
only Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution allow for proportionate representation, and only
for a certain time. As a result, the 50% upper limit on reservations is both appropriate and
required under the reserve rule, which provides adequate representation. Extreme caution is to
be exercised and a special case has to be made out.

11
M.R. Balaji v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649
12
N. M. Thomas v. State of Kerala, AIR 1976 SC 490
13
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
14
V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 332 (13th ed. 2021).
The principles of reservation, made it mandatory to follow the 50 percent rule and also laid
down the conditions when the rule can be deviated. After the Indra Sawhney15 decision, the
Legislature in order to partially nullify the effect of the decision introduced two amendments
to the Constitution namely the 81st Amendment which included Article 16(4B), allowing
reservations made as part of promotions to exceed the 50% cap by allowing the carry forward
rule to increase the total reservation in a year and the 82nd Amendment which amended Article
335 to allow relaxation in conditions for promotion of SC and ST candidates. However, the
Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj16 , reinstated the rule that the 50 percent rule can be vitiated only
in special cases as laid down in Indra Sawhney.

The same was reiterated by the Court in N.M. Joshi17 , that the exception to the 50% rule should
be based on quantifiable data failing which the deviation of the rule would amount to the
increase in reservation being against the Constitution. Thus, it has been clearly established that
one of the limitations posed by the judiciary on reservation is that there can be no deviation to
the 50% rule except in exceptional situations. There are States that have been permitted to
deviate from the rule owing to the special circumstances, In K. Krishna Murthy 18 , the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court applied the 50% ceiling in vertical reservations in
favour of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/ Other Backward Class in the context of local self-
government. However, it was held that exception can be made in order to safeguard the interest
of Scheduled Tribes located in the Scheduled Area.

KARNATAKA RESERVATION

The Karnataka government issued an ordinance in October 2022 raising the reservation limits
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to 17 percent and 7 percent, respectively, in spite
of a significant ruling by the Supreme Court in the recent past. The Justice Subhash Adi
Committee report and the suggestions of the Justice HN Nagamohandas Commission were
taken into consideration when the ordinance was passed. The State's total reserve percentage
would rise to 56% as a result of the increase for SCs and STs, which is obviously higher than
the threshold established by the Supreme Court. Regarding the distribution of benefits of
reservation quotas among SCs in political, educational, and government employment
prospects, the context of Karnataka presents a distinct policy problematique.

15
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
16
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212
17
N. M. Joshi & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others, (2012) 7 SCC 41.
18
K. Krishna Murthy and others v. Union of India and another, (2010) 7 SCC 202.
Reservation structure in Karnataka

The Vokkaligas 4% and Lingayaths 5% are two prominent landed castes that are eligible for a
proportionate degree of quota and are subcategorized as OBCs. 52% of OBCs, 18% SCs, and
7% STs have been compressed by the State under the 50% reservation quota benefit limit. For
the 18% of SCs (as reported in the 2011 Census), who are currently only eligible to 15% of
reserves and receive just 10% of effective reservation benefits, there is still a lack of
opportunity. These benefits must be shared among 101 SC communities. Karnataka
consequently has continuous infighting because it has the most SC notifications. The SC group
covers an extremely broad range of jobs, from manual scavenging to cabinet ministers to IAS
officers. But this is not a general tale 38% of them still live in poverty, and 83% of the land is
owned by SCs was allocated is unproductive because it is not irrigated19.

Caste based Population

According to the 2011 census, the ST population in the State makes up 6.9% of the total
population, while the SC population is 17%. When contrasted, the Census data from 1991 and
2011 show a number of notable alterations. The data from the Census statistics is not the same
as what is really found in the field. Census data indicates that certain villages are genuinely
becoming extinct. There is a big difference between SCs and Non-SCs in terms of land
ownership. 52.4% of agricultural land is owned by other higher castes, compared to 33.4% by
OBCs. From 19.16 lakh in 1991 to 34.64 lakh in 2001 to 42.49 lakh in 201120, Karnataka has
a growing tribal population. Fertility rates have not increased, nor is the addition of several
new tribes to the Scheduled Tribes list. It has been clearly established that the prescribed limit
can be breached only in exceptional cases that needs to be supported by quantifiable data.

Nagamohandas Commission report

The Nagamohandas Commission report have tried to justify the suggested increase though
according to reports there is no confirmation on whether the report states so on the ground of
increasing numbers of SC/ST population in the State21. According to Justice Nagamohandas,
despite advancements in a number of areas, including employment, education, and the human

19
Sangeetha Thomas* & N. Venkatesh Kamath, Breaching the limit: a critical evaluation of the increase in
reservation limit in karnataka. Indian Politics & Law Review Journal (IPLRJ) ISSN 2581 7086 Volume 8 - 2023
20
Karnataka Legislative Assembly, https://Www.Kla.Kar.Nic.In/Assembly/Bills/Bill15140_31.Pdf, (last visited
Apr. 20, 2023).
21
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/justice-nagamohan-das-commission-submits-report-on-
hike-in-reservation-for-sc-st-communities-856309. html last visited on Feb, 21 2024)
development index, SCs and STs still lag behind other communities22. For instance, they are
underrepresented in employment in grades A and B while they are overrepresented in jobs in
grades C and D. Other signs of their backwardness include the underrepresentation of them in
higher education. There have also been reports on the Commission’s report that despite the
existing reservations, the same has not been able to cater to the education and employment
requirements of a signification section of the backward communities.

The Justice Subhash Adi Committee report cited studies from the National Law School of India
University, Bengaluru, which asserts that 74% of tribal tribes have remained invisible and have
literacy rates of less than 3%. Research indicates that other States have registered a higher
percentage of castes than Karnataka, but fewer castes overall. This is due to a comparison of
the number of castes in Karnataka and other States that are classified as SC and ST. Uttar
Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh were given as examples23.

THE KARNATAKA SC AND ST (RESERVATION) ACT, 2022

The Karnataka Assembly on unanimously passed a Bill proposing to increase reservation for
Scheduled Castes from 15 per cent to 17 per cent and for Scheduled Tribes from 3 per cent to
7 per cent in the state, exceeding the 50 per cent ceiling on quota by 6 per cent on 19/12/202124
It was come into force with effect from the 01st day of November, 2022

Object

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Central Act 108
of 1976) removed the geographical limitations on castes, which also caused the population of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Karnataka to expand dramatically.
b. According to Government Order E- 185-285 RBS-35-34-2 issued by the State of Karnataka
in April 1955, a total 18% of seats were reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. c. The reservation quota provided to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes continued to remain the same as it was in the year 1958. 15% for the Scheduled Castes
and 3% for the Scheduled Tribes, though their population and coverage of number of castes
increased subsequently. The High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.16852/2015 directed the State

22
Karnataka Legislative Assembly, https://Www.Kla.Kar.Nic.In/Assembly/Bills/Bill15140_31.Pdf, (last visited
Feb. 20, 2024).
23
Social Welfare Department, https://www.scsptsp.kar.nic.in/STSCPopulation.html, (last visited Feb. 20, 2024)
24
Sangeetha Thomas* & N. Venkatesh Kamath, Breaching the limit: a critical evaluation of the increase in
reservation limit in karnataka. Indian Politics & Law Review Journal (IPLRJ) ISSN 2581 7086 Volume 8 - 2023
Government to consider the representation filed by Nayak Students’ Welfare Federation for
increase of reservation to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Methods used by Karnataka Government

1. Internal reservation

Government would not have to increase the total percentage of reservation but provide a change
in reservation quota inter se within the communities. There has been a recent Supreme Court
decision on internal reservation policy25 and the factors needed to be considered for the same.
The Supreme Court in Pattali Makkal Katchi 26considered the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation
of Seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and
Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State within the Reservation for the Most
Backward Classes and De-notified Communities Act, 2021, which provided an internal
reservation of 10.5% for the Vanniyar community within the 20% quota for all Most Backward
Classes (MBCs) and De-notified Communities (DNCs).

It was claimed that they are numerically predominant community but were unable to compete
with the other communities in the MBC/DNC category. The Janarthanam Commission Report,
Justice Thanikachalam’s Report, Ambasankar Commission Report and Sattanathan
Commission Report were relied upon. On November 1, 2021, a division bench of the Madras
High Court ruled that the law was passed without any quantifiable data and there was no
objective criteria for sub-classifying them. It reiterated the position stated in State of Andhra
Pradesh v. U.S.V. Balramli27 , that judicial scrutiny is permissible to enquire into whether the
conclusions arrived at by the Commission are supported by the data and materials referred to
in its report. It observed the law that reservation is based on adequate representation and not
proportionate representation is a settled rule. Further, it stated that sub-classification would be
permissible only on the ground that a class is too far backward from the advanced sections of
that class.

The Court held that even though it was observed in E.V. Chinnaiahliii that all castes including
the subcastes, races, tribes mentioned in the list are to be members of one group for the purposes
of the Constitution and cannot be further subdivided to give more preference to a minuscule

25
Pradeep Ramavath J, From Millions to Fractions: Re-examining Pragmatism in the Context of ‘Internal
Reservation’, NLSIU OCCASSIONAL PAPER SERIES 1, 21 (2018).
26
Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerum Perumal & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333.
27
State of Andhra Pradesh v. U.S.V. Balram, (1972) 1 SCC 660
portion thereof, it was held in Indra Sawhney that sub-classification of backward classes is
permissible. But this sub-classification dealt with by Indra Sawhney related only to OBCs and
not to Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes28. The Court observed that backward classes can
be identified, as a beginning point, by caste, and wherever they are located, the criteria
developed for evaluating backwardness can be applied to check if they fit the requirements.
Caste can be the basis for reservation but it can never be the sole basis29. Population being cited
as the sole factor to support classification is in the teeth of the judgements of the Supreme Court
in Indra Sawhney and Jarnail Singh30.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held the classification to be unreasonable. Therefore violative
of Articles 14, 15 and 16 as there was no substantial basis for differentiating the Vanniakula
Kshatriyas and granting them separate reservation. In concluding paragraphs of the judgement,
it was noted that no express opinion has been stated on the merits of the writ petition
challenging the 1994 Act which was pending consideration before the Supreme Court. The
1994 Act extends reservation in Tamil Nadu to 69% and the same is sub-judice.

2. Constitutional Amendment

Karnataka Government is taking the help of Article 31-B and placing the Act, so passed by the
Legislature, in the Ninth Schedule by means of a Constitutional Amendment which would not
be such a tedious task considering the fact that the ruling parties at the State and Central
Governments are the same. It has been established that politics plays an important role in
federalism and therefore the same party at the State and Central governments pave a better and
easier way for such State Governments to ensure that the Central Government complies with
their requests. This being said, according to CS Dwarakanath, a former chairperson of the
Backward Classes Commission, the Centre would find it exceedingly difficult to grant the
state's request for a constitutional amendment and place the Act in Schedule IX given that
groups like the Kurubas and Panchamasali Lingayats are also demanding an increase or change
in quota.

Even if it succeeds, it will be like unleashing a Pandora's box since other communities will also
make similar claims. The benefit of placing a legislation into the Ninth Schedule is that the
Courts cannot scrutinize any such legislation and judicial review is not permitted by the

28
V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 332 (13th ed. 2021).
29
Sangeetha Thomas* & N. Venkatesh Kamath, Breaching the limit: a critical evaluation of the increase in
reservation limit in karnataka. Indian Politics & Law Review Journal (IPLRJ) ISSN 2581 7086 Volume 8 - 2023
30
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396
Constitution (Article 31-B). However, since judicial review has been considered as part of the
basic structure of the Constitution, it cannot be absolutely restricted and can only be partially
restricted. The paper shall now deal with limitations and conditions to be fulfilled for a
legislation to be placed under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

It was held in Sajjan Singh31 that if the legislature amends any of the provisions contained in
the said Acts, the amended provision would not receive the protection of Article 31-B and its
validity could be examined on merits. Further, in Waman Raol, the Apex Court held that
amendments in the Ninth Schedule made before the date of decision in Kesavananda Bharati
v. State of Keralal32 i.e., before 24 April 1973 were beyond challenge but the amendments
which were made after could be tested on the ground of amendment of the basic structure of
the Constitution. Similarly in I.R. Coelho 33 , a nine judge bench of the Supreme Court
unanimously reiterated Waman Rao34 and held that the laws included after the said date shall
be open to challenge on the ground that they are against or destructive of the basic structure of
the Constitution while also reaffirming that Article 31-B did not destroy or damage the basic
structure of the Constitution.

The case also reiterated the fact that Articles 14, 19 and 21 form part of the basic structure of
the Constitution and Article 31 -B cannot support abrogation of the basic structure. Thus, it is
established that judicial scrutiny cannot be completely taken away by placing a legislation
under the Ninth Schedule and even Article 31-B cannot abrogate the basic structure of the
Constitution. Karnataka Government decides to place the Act under the Ninth Schedule, by
means of a Constitutional amendment, with the political support of the political party at the
Centre, it would still be subject to judicial scrutiny and can be struck down. This is because, if
the reservation limit is increased only on the ground of population and proportionate
representation in education and employment, the same would be in violation of the principles
of equality and equity laid down in our constitution under Articles 14, 15 and 16. As
aforementioned, equality as well as Article 14 is considered as part of the basic structure and
violation of the same would make the law liable to be struck down regardless of the umbrella
of protection provided by Articles 31- B, 31- C and the Ninth Schedule.

31
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845.
32
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
33
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861.
34
Waman Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271
CONCLUSION

Our Constitution recognises positive discrimination, or reservations, as a necessary means of

ensuring equity and equality. However, the Constitution's provisions as well as the country's
constitutional courts have placed a number of restrictions on the application and enforcement
of reservation policy. The maximum defined limit of reserve that can be allowed in a certain
State is one such restriction, among others. Based on the concepts of equity and equality, the
courts determined the prescribed limit of 50% through a multitude of instances, and their
decisions are substantiated by good arguments.

Under these conditions, the Karnataka government's decision to pass the ordinance and
subsequently present the bill to the Legislature, increasing the reservations for SC and ST to
17% and 7%, respectively, would also result in an increase in the state's overall reserve to 56%.
Although this nation's courts have granted an exception to the 50 percent rule in "extraordinary
and exceptional" circumstances, the Karnataka government's action does not initially appear to
address the unusual circumstance specified under the rule. The legal justification for the other
two options internal reservation and adding the Act to the Ninth Schedule seems improbable.

Based on the different reports and excerpts from the Nagamohandas Commission Report that
the Karnataka government has made available, it can be inferred that the Act will not withstand
judicial scrutiny and will be overturned because it does not provide sufficient quantifiable data
on the need for such an exception. This leads one to the conclusion that the Karnataka
government has once again exploited reservation as a tool to win political support in the State,
based on the report's available sections and a preliminary examination of the facts and
conditions present in the state.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Aakash Dubey, A Study on Reservation, 5 International journal of law management &

humanities 815, 815 (2022).
2. Karnataka Legislative Assembly Www.Kla.Kar .Nic.In/ Assembly/Bills/Bill15140_3
1.Pdf, (last visited Feb. 20, 2024).
3. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis 8th Edition, 2022
4. Pradeep Ramavath J, From Millions to Fractions: Re-examining Pragmatism in the
Context of ‘Internal Reservation’, NLSIU OCCASSIONAL PAPER SERIES 1, 21
(2018).
5. Sangeetha Thomas* & N. Venkatesh Kamath, Breaching the limit: a critical evaluation
of the increase in reservation limit in karnataka. Indian Politics & Law Review Journal
(IPLRJ) ISSN 2581 7086 Volume 8 – 2023
6. Sanjay Jain, V.D. Mahajan's Constitutional Law of India, Eastern Book Company, 8th
Edition 2023
7. The Constitutional Law of India by Dr. JN Pandey, Central Law Agency, 60th edn 2023
8. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 332 (13th ed. 2021).
9. Yesu Suresh Raj ET AL., An Analysis of Reservation System in India, 2 International
journal of research 1038, 1038-1039 (2015).