Why is it in the news ?

• Recently, the Patna High Court nullified Bihar’s attempt to raise reservations in jobs and education from 50% to 65%.
• The court emphasized that while reservations address social inequities, merit must also be considered.
• This decision renews the debate on India’s 50% reservation limit, which aims to balance equity with efficiency.

The 50% Ceiling: Origins and Significance

• The 50% ceiling on reservations was established by the Supreme Court in its landmark 1992 decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.
• This ruling, which upheld a 27% quota for Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC), set two key precedents: reservations should be based on “social and educational backwardness,” and the 50% limit on reserved categories was reaffirmed.
• This limit, mentioned in earlier cases like M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) and Devadasan v. Union of India (1964), aimed to ensure administrative “efficiency.”
• The Indra Sawhney ruling allowed breaching the 50% limit only in “exceptional circumstances,” a standard upheld in many cases. Despite this, states like Bihar have tried to exceed the 50% limit due to political and social pressures.

Recent Developments and Legal Challenges

• The 50% ceiling on reservations has been a contentious issue, with several states trying to exceed it.
• During the 2024 election campaign, the Congress party promised a caste census and reservations beyond 50%, highlighting its political importance.
• The 50% limit is currently challenged in the Supreme Court. Despite this, courts have generally struck down laws exceeding this limit, except for the 10% quota for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) introduced in 2019.
• In November 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the EWS quota, stating that the 50% ceiling applies only to SC, ST, and OBC quotas, not to the EWS quota.

• This decision has sparked questions about whether the Supreme Court might revisit the Indra Sawhney ruling.
• The majority opinion in the EWS case noted that the 50% ceiling is not “inflexible or inviolable,” suggesting potential for future re-evaluation.

Broader Implications and State-Specific Cases

• The 50% ceiling on reservations has been interpreted differently across states.
• The 76th Constitutional Amendment in 1994 placed Tamil Nadu’s law, which exceeded this limit, into the Ninth Schedule, protecting it from judicial review.
• However, in May 2021, the Supreme Court struck down Maharashtra’s law for Maratha reservations, reaffirming the 50% limit. Similar challenges have arisen in states like Gujarat, Haryana, and Andhra Pradesh.

Criticism against 50% Ceiling

• Critics say the 50% reservation ceiling is arbitrary, while supporters argue exceeding it would undermine meritocracy.
• Dr. B. R. Ambedkar warned that “unregulated reservations could erode equality”. However, others believe reservations promote substantive equality.
• In 2022, the Supreme Court upheld a 27% OBC quota, stating reservations do not clash with merit but promote fair distribution. This view may affect the Court’s future stance on the 50% ceiling.

Conclusion

The recent Patna High Court decision highlights the ongoing debate over the 50% limit on reservations in India. As states and politicians navigate this issue, finding a balance between social justice and meritocracy remains challenging. Upcoming Supreme Court deliberations will be crucial in determining the future of reservations and how equality is interpreted in India’s Constitution.