GS Papers: GS2
What Happened
The Karnataka government announced it will proceed with recruitment under the existing 50% reservation cap, after the High Court issued an interim stay on the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation) Act, 2022. The Act had sought to raise SC reservation from 15% to 17% and ST reservation from 3% to 7%, pushing total reservations in the state to 56% — well above the 50% ceiling established by the Supreme Court.
Cabinet Minister Priyank Kharge confirmed that fresh recruitment notifications will follow the roster points that were in effect before December 28, 2022 — the date from which the new Act was to apply. Recruitment processes already notified before November 19, 2025 may continue under the earlier framework. The government clarified that any internal reservation changes within the SC/ST quota — including its revised allocation among sub-groups — would also remain subject to the final court verdict.
The development has political salience: the 2022 Act was passed amid pressure from dominant SC and ST community groups, and the move to raise quotas was seen as a significant policy commitment by the previous government. The High Court's stay has brought the state's reservation architecture back to the pre-2022 configuration, pending final determination of constitutionality.
Static Topic Bridges
1. The 50% Ceiling — Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
The 50% cap on reservations is not a constitutional provision written in text — it is a judicial construction established by the Supreme Court's nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India (1992), commonly called the Mandal judgment. The bench upheld 27% OBC reservations under the Mandal Commission recommendations but ruled that total reservations (SC + ST + OBC) ordinarily cannot exceed 50% of available posts.
The Court carved out a narrow exception for "extraordinary situations" in remote and backward areas, but held that exceeding 50% as a general rule would be a breach of the right to equality under Article 14. Karnataka's 2022 Act (SC 17% + ST 7% + OBC 32% = 56%) directly conflicts with this ceiling.
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019) that introduced 10% EWS reservation for general category candidates was challenged partly on the grounds that it pushed combined reservations beyond 50%. The Supreme Court upheld EWS in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) on the reasoning that EWS serves a different constitutional basis — but this remains contested.
2. Sub-Classification Within Reservations — The Pankaj Kumar Case (2024)
The Karnataka situation also involves internal reservation — dividing the 17% SC quota among over 100 sub-castes. This question received a definitive answer from a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), which overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) and held that states can sub-classify within SC/ST reservations to ensure the most backward sub-groups receive meaningful benefit.
Sub-classification does not violate Articles 14 or 341. States can identify, using empirical data, which sub-communities within the SC list are inadequately represented and provide them preferential access within the overall SC quota. Karnataka's attempt to restructure internal reservations follows this legal enabling; the HC stay covers both the overall quantum increase and any internal reclassification.
3. Federal Dimension — States' Power to Augment Reservations
The Constitution distributes reservation-making powers between Parliament and state legislatures. Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) empower states to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and for inadequately represented communities. States may legislate reservations, but they cannot override the Supreme Court's judicially imposed 50% ceiling without a constitutional amendment.
Tamil Nadu has a 69% reservation (protected under the Ninth Schedule) that predates the Indra Sawhney judgment, making it a special case. Karnataka's attempt to cross 50% without Ninth Schedule protection — or without a constitutional amendment expanding the ceiling — was thus constitutionally vulnerable from the outset, as the HC stay now demonstrates.
4. OBC Creamy Layer and Social Justice Architecture
Karnataka also maintains 32% OBC reservations. The OBC framework is governed nationally by the Other Backward Classes (Central List) maintained by the National Commission for Backward Classes and by state lists. Karnataka has its own Backward Classes Commission that recommends inclusions.
The Indra Sawhney judgment introduced the "creamy layer" concept — the idea that better-off sections within backward classes should not corner reservation benefits. The ₹8 lakh annual family income threshold currently determines creamy layer status for OBCs at the central level (though states may set their own thresholds). The overall Karnataka reservation architecture must therefore balance total quantum, sub-classification, and creamy layer exclusion — all within judicially mandated limits.
Key Facts and Data
- Karnataka SC reservation under 2022 Act: increased from 15% to 17%
- Karnataka ST reservation under 2022 Act: increased from 3% to 7%
- Total reservation if Act took effect: 56% (SC 17% + ST 7% + OBC 32%)
- Supreme Court's reservation ceiling: 50% (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992)
- HC stay: fresh recruitment to follow pre-December 28, 2022 roster points
- Pre-2022 Karnataka SC quota: 15%; ST quota: 3%
- Pankaj Kumar (2024): SC approved sub-classification within SC/ST quotas
- Tamil Nadu exception: 69% reservation under Ninth Schedule protection
- OBC creamy layer income threshold (central level): ₹8 lakh per annum