Bihar Reservation: The two ordinances passed by the Bihar government that raised the reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and Extremely Backward Classes from 50% to 65% were overturned by the Patna High Court on Thursday.
Legal Basis of High Court’s Decision
The Bihar (In admission in Educational Institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (Amendment) Act, 2023 were declared extra vires and violated the equality clause under Articles 14, 15, and 16 by the high court, according to the Bar and Bench. The report said that Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar rendered decisions on a number of cases against the changes proposed by the Bihar Assembly in 2023.
The decision to raise reservations for Backward Classes, Extremely Backward Classes (EBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST) was made by the Bihar administration, which is led by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. A bill to raise reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and Extremely Backward Classes from the current 50% to 65% was unanimously approved by the Bihar Assembly on November 9.
Bihar’s Reservation Quota Increase to 75% and Impact on Supreme Court Barrier
The new rule raised Bihar’s reservation percentage to 75%, much beyond the 50% barrier established by the Supreme Court, when combined with the 10% Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota. The new Bihar Reservation Amendment Bill increased the quotas for Backward Classes (BC) from 12% to 18%, Scheduled Castes (SC) from 16% to 20%, Scheduled Tribes (ST) from 1% to 2%, and Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) from 18% to 25%.
A public interest lawsuit (PIL) was brought before the court, arguing that reservation was created in accordance with the constitution to provide appropriate representation to the socially and educationally disadvantaged groups and that there was no clause allowing for reservation based on population size. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) argued that the three statutes infringed against the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including the equal right to be appointed to public office and the right against discrimination.
Impact on People
In terms of society, the decision has sparked discussions about fair representation in public agencies and educational institutions as well as affirmative action. It emphasizes how important it is to strike a careful balance between protecting merit-based governance ideals and providing chances for neglected people.
