Case title:
Gaurav Kumar & Ors v. The State of Bihar & Ors
Date of Order:
20th June 2024
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Parties:
Petitioner(s): Gaurav Kumar & Ors
Respondent(s): State of Bihar & Ors
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble High Court of Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’ or ‘the Court’) declared the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (Amendment) Act of 2023 to be unconstitutional. The High Court held that the Act enhanced the reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs beyond 50% without demonstrating extraordinary circumstances justifying the increase. It was further held that the Act was undermining merit-based selection through this increase in reservation percentages. The Act was subsequently set aside by the High Court.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Constitution of India:
- Article 14
- Article 15
- Article 16
- Article 29
The Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes & other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 (the Reservation Act)
The Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Amendment Act)
The Bihar State Backward Commission Act, 1993
OVERVIEW:
- The Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (Amendment) Act of 2023 is an amendment to the existing reservation laws in Bihar that addresses the allocation of vacancies in public employment and educational institutions.
- The Amendment Act aims at modifying reservation quotas for SCs, STs, and OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions in Bihar.
- Some characteristic features of the Amendment Act are as follows:
- Increases reservation quotas for SCs, STs, and OBCs beyond 50% in government jobs and educational institutions
- Is based on proportion of the population of different categories of SCs, STs, and OBCs to ensure their representation in government.
- Operates within Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
- Aggrieved, certain individuals and groups contested the amendment stating that the Act was infringing their Constitutional rights before the Patna High Court.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (Amendment) Act, 2023 is constitutional?
- Whether it is with the powers of the State government to enhance the reservations beyond 50%?
- Whether exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated by the State Government, justifying the increase in reservations beyond 50%?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER(S):
- Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, it was argued that the Amendment Act was violative of the ceiling of 50% on reservations. The cap ensures balance between merit and affirmative action.
- The State failed to conduct a detailed scientific analysis of the data collection from the caste survey. The decision to increase reservation was arbitrary and not based on any systematic examination of the socio-economic conditions of the communities involved.
- The principles of equality and equal opportunity as enshrined in Articles 14,15, and 16 are violated by the implementation of the Amendment Act.
- Merit-based selection process gets undermined by the disproportionate reservation, creating an unfair advantage for certain groups at others’ expense.
- No extraordinary circumstances were demonstrated by the State justifying the exceeding 50% reservation limit.
- Reliance was placed on population data rather than comprehensive assessment of actual representation and socio-economic backwardness.
- Affirmative action should not come at the cost of compromising the quality of effectiveness of public administration and education.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT(S):
- The historical underrepresentation of SCs, STs, and OBCs in government services and educational institutions, has necessitated this amendment. The existing reservations were insufficient to achieve adequate representation for these marginalized communities.
- The purpose of the amendment is to align the reservations closely to the demographic composition of Bihar.
- The SCs, STs, and OBCs communities in Bihar are socio-economically backward, and the increase in reservation is essential to uplift these communities in order to provide them with equal opportunities.
- The 50% ceiling in reservation established in Sawhney case (supra), was not absolute and Bihar’s demographic warrants a deviation from the 50% limit.
- The Amendment Act operates within Articles 15(4) and 16(4), which provides for reservations to promote the interests of socially and educationally backward classes.
- The Act promotes equity and inclusiveness in public employment and education by bridging the gaps between different communities and ensuring a more representative administration.
- The increase was based on the data collected from a caste survey that provided insights to the socio-economic conditions of various communities.
- The State of Bihar was competent to enact the Amendment Act and was a legitimate exercise of the state’s legislative authority to promote social justice.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- The High Court reiterated in the principle established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, wherein it was laid that the ceiling limit for reservation in public employments and education was 50% and reservations should not exceed the limit except under extraordinary circumstances.
- The Amendment Act had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting the exceed in the reservation limit stating that the cap was an inviolable rule aimed at maintaining a balance between affirmative action and merit.
- Referring to the case of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, the High Court held that it was essential to have a ceiling limit on reservations to ensure that merit is not entirely compromised.
- It underscored the need for identifying backwardness not based solely on caste but also other factors such as poverty, occupations, etc.
- While it acknowledged that economic disadvantages were a valid criterion of reservation, it is necessary to adhere to the established limits, as supported by the ruling in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India.
- Additionally, the survey conducted lacked an in-dept study and collection of sufficient data before making the decision to increase the reservations.
- It was noted that reliance was placed primarily on the proportion of population of different communities instead of analysis of the socio-economic conditions and representation in public services. The lack of such comprehensive evaluation was held as a critical flaw in the Amendment Act.
- The Court underscored the pressing need for maintenance of merit and efficiency in public administration.
- Reaffirming the Constitutional principles, the emphasized that balance has to maintained between affirmative action and merit. Ensuring that reservations do not undermine the principles of equal opportunity as enshrined in Articles 14,15, and 16 of the Constitution.
- The Amendment Act was subsequently set aside.
CONCLUSION:
The Patna High Court set aside the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies Post and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act 2023, holding it unconstitutional. The High Court held that the Act was ultra vires of the Constitution of India, and violative of the equality clauses under Articles 14,15, and 16. The need for maintaining a balance between uplifting backward communities who have been historically disadvantaged and merit-based opportunities in public administration and education. It was ruled that increasing reservation limits beyond 50% without demonstrating extraordinary circumstances mandating the increase, undermines merit-based selection. It was held that while appointing a commission was not mandatory, thorough investigation and data analysis was essential to make significant changes in the existing reservation policies. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed that the parties suffer their respective losses.
