Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Karnataka government skirts internal reservation in recruitments

February 28, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance Social Issues GS2 (Polity Social Justice Governance)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The Karnataka government issued a Government Order authorising recruitment notifications for 56,432 Group A, B, and C posts across various departments — without including any provision for internal reservation within the Scheduled Caste (SC) category.
  • Authorities were directed to initiate recruitment notifications within 30 days to fill these vacancies, with no mention of sub-categorisation of SC reservations as mandated by the 7-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment of August 2024.
  • The Karnataka Cabinet had previously, in October 2024, approved a framework for internal SC reservation (sub-classifying 18 Madiga-related communities at 6%, 17 Holeya-related communities at 5%, and 4 touchable castes at 4%) and constituted a one-man commission to finalise the formula.
  • The decision to proceed with recruitment without internal reservation has been criticised by Dalit communities — particularly Madiga and Holeya sub-groups — who argue that without sub-categorisation, dominant SC communities (Bhovis, etc.) will continue to corner the bulk of reserved posts.
  • The government indicated the internal reservation question would be decided after a High Court verdict on quota recalibration, effectively deferring implementation despite the Supreme Court's green light.

Static Topic Bridges

Sub-Classification of SC/ST Reservations: The August 2024 Supreme Court Judgment

In a landmark 6:1 majority judgment (State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, August 1, 2024), a 7-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court overruled E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) and held that states have the constitutional power to sub-classify within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe reservation categories. The court held that SC/ST is not a homogenous group — there exist communities within the larger SC list that are more backward than others — and states can create sub-quotas to ensure reservations reach the most disadvantaged within the category. However, any sub-classification must be based on empirical data showing differential levels of backwardness and inadequate representation.

  • Case: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) — 7-judge Constitution Bench.
  • Majority: 6:1 (CJI D.Y. Chandrachud + Justices Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, Satish Chandra Sharma).
  • Overruled: E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) — which had held sub-classification impermissible.
  • Key holding: SC is not a homogenous class; states can sub-classify based on empirical evidence of differential representation.
  • Requirement: Sub-classification must be backed by quantifiable data — not politically motivated.
  • Creamy layer within SCs: Some judges (notably Justice Gavai) observed that creamy layer exclusion within SC/ST may need consideration, though this was not the majority holding.

Connection to this news: Karnataka's October 2024 Cabinet decision on SC sub-classification was a direct response to the Supreme Court's August 2024 judgment. The decision to proceed with 56,432 recruitments without implementing sub-classification is seen as inconsistent with both the court mandate and the Cabinet's own resolution.

Reservation Framework in India: Constitutional Provisions

Reservations for SC/ST and OBC communities flow from Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) of the Constitution. Article 15(4) permits the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or SC/STs. Article 16(4) permits reservation in appointments or posts in public services in favour of backward classes not adequately represented. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — the Mandal case — capped total reservations at 50% (with exceptions for extraordinary circumstances), excluded the creamy layer from OBC reservations, and upheld the distinction between SC/ST and OBC reservations.

  • Article 15(4): State may make special provisions for advancement of SC/ST and socially/educationally backward classes (not a fundamental right to reservation, but a permission to do so).
  • Article 16(4): Reservation in public employment for inadequately represented backward classes.
  • Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): 50% cap on total reservations; creamy layer excluded from OBC; SC/ST not subject to creamy layer (reaffirmed in subsequent cases).
  • Article 341: President notifies SC list; only Parliament can add/remove communities from the list.
  • Sub-classification does not alter the SC list — it allocates the existing SC quota among sub-groups within the same constitutional category.

Connection to this news: Karnataka's 15% SC reservation pool for the 56,432 posts (in the absence of sub-classification) will be distributed proportionally — critics argue this perpetuates the dominance of better-represented SC communities within the broader category.

Karnataka's OBC and SC Reservation Landscape

Karnataka has a complex reservation structure with the state following a 50% total cap. The state scrapped its 4% OBC reservation for Muslims in 2023 (following political changes) and redistributed it as 2% each to the Vokkaliga and Veerashaiva-Lingayat communities. The SC reservation stands at 15% and ST at 3%. The Madiga community, the largest SC sub-group (approximately 35% of Karnataka's SC population), has long demanded that their numbers are not reflected in actual government employment gains — pointing to the "capture" of SC posts by dominant sub-communities. The Madiga Reservation Horatha (MRH) has been agitating for internal reservation since the 1990s.

  • Karnataka's reservation breakdown: OBC ~32%, SC 15%, ST 3%, EWS 10% (totalling 50% per Indra Sawhney cap).
  • SC sub-categorisation proposed by Karnataka Cabinet (October 2024): 18 Madiga-related communities → 6%; 17 Holeya-related communities → 5%; 4 touchable castes → 4% (total adds to 15%).
  • Madiga community: approximately 34.91% of Karnataka's SC population; traditionally argued to be underrepresented in government jobs relative to their population share.
  • Madiga Reservation Horatha (MRH): long-standing advocacy group for internal SC reservation, active since early 1990s.

Connection to this news: The Karnataka government's decision to proceed with 56,432 recruitments without internal reservation directly frustrates the demand of communities like Madiga, who have waited decades for sub-categorisation and now see a post-Supreme Court window being missed.

Key Facts & Data

  • Government Order: recruitment notifications for 56,432 Group A, B, C posts within 30 days — no mention of internal SC reservation.
  • Karnataka Cabinet approved SC sub-categorisation framework: October 2024.
  • SC sub-classification proposed split: Madiga-related (6%), Holeya-related (5%), touchable castes (4%).
  • Supreme Court: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) — 7-judge bench (6:1) — states can sub-classify within SC/ST.
  • Overruled: E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004).
  • Karnataka's SC reservation: 15%; ST: 3%.
  • Total reservation cap (Indra Sawhney, 1992): 50%.
  • Article 341: President notifies SC list; Parliament amends it — sub-classification does not alter the Presidential notification list.
  • Madiga community: ~34.91% of Karnataka's SC population.