Can a State go past the 50% ceiling because backward classes make up most of its population? The Karnataka High Court has said no, striking down the SC/ST Quota Hike Law to the extent it took total reservation to 56%.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: Holding that the SC/ST Quota Hike Law violates Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court on October 12 struck down Section 3 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, insofar as it takes aggregate reservation beyond 50%, and struck down Section 4 of the Act in full [Mahendra Kumar Mitra and Others v. Union of India and Others].
Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha allowed two writ petitions as a Division Bench. The judgment had been reserved on September 9.
Population is not a licence to cross the ceiling
Rejecting the population-based argument, the Bench held:
“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.”
On the “extraordinary circumstances” exception recognised in Indra Sawhney, the Court said the State had to establish at least that, without exceeding the limit, left-out communities would have no possibility of meaningful participation, which was not its case:
“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 ceiling, the Court also held, applies equally to reservation under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4).
The 2022 Act and who challenged it
The Act received the Governor’s assent on January 11, 2023 and was deemed effective from November 1, 2022. It raised reservation for Scheduled Castes from 15% to 17% and for Scheduled Tribes from 3% to 7%. With OBC reservation unchanged at 32%, overall reservation in the State rose from 50% to 56%.
The petitions came from Mahendra Kumar Mitra, State President of the Dr. Ambedkar Scheduled Castes Federation, who appeared in person, and from civil engineering graduates Sagar H.R., Prajwal Kumar D. and Purushotham Gowda G.M., who had applied for Assistant Engineer (Civil) posts in the BBMP.
What the State argued
Senior Advocate Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, for the State, relied on the Nagamohan Das Commission, the Adi Committee and the Ratnaprabha Committee reports to show continued under-representation of SCs and STs. He argued that their population had grown substantially while their reservation stayed the same for decades, that over 90% of the State’s population belongs to SCs, STs and OBCs, and that the 50% ceiling should not be treated as inflexible in exceptional circumstances.
No consultation with the national commissions
The Court noted that the State had not consulted the National Commission for Scheduled Castes or the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes before enacting the law, as Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) require on all major policy matters. It rejected the State’s argument that these clauses do not apply to legislation, and held that letters written on December 10, 2025 and January 20, 2026, nearly three years after enactment and after the challenge was filed, could not satisfy the requirement:
“Consultation, to be meaningful and effective, must precede the decision.”
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.
ALSO READ: Madhya Pradesh High Court Keeps OBC Reservation At 14%, Rejects 2019 Hike To 27%
The operative holding
“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.”
What the judgment settles
The ruling applies the settled position that reservation cannot exceed 50% except in extraordinary circumstances, and that a community’s share of the population, or under-representation alone, does not by itself meet that threshold. Data on backwardness can support measures within the ceiling, but does not by itself justify breaching it.
The judgment also treats prior consultation with the national SC and ST commissions as a constitutional requirement for reservation policy, and holds that consultation after the fact does not count. The State argued that the Act responds to decades of under-representation; it remains open to the State to pursue any further remedy available in law.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Mitra and Others v. Union of India and Others [WP No. 200448 of 2025 c/w WP No. 25515 of 2025]
Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, Karnataka High Court
Date of Judgment: October 12, 2026
Appearances: Petitioner in WP 200448/2025 in person; Senior Advocate P.S. Rajagopal with Advocate Vinayaka S. Pandit for petitioners; Senior Advocate Prof. Ravivarma Kumar for the State of Karnataka; Senior Advocate Ruben Jacob and others for respondents; Central Government Standing Counsel Harsha P. Banad for the Union; Senior Advocate Udaya Holla with Advocates Vivek Holla, Pavan Kumar N. and Vijay Kumar V.B. for applicants