Karnataka HC strikes down law increasing SC/ST quota

1. At a Glance

• The Karnataka High Court struck down the State's attempt to raise SC/ST reservation beyond the 50% ceiling, holding the increase "constitutionally impermissible" [1].
• A Division Bench declared Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka SC and ST (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 2022 ultra vires the Constitution [1].
• Why it matters for UPSC: it brings together the 50% ceiling (Indra Sawhney), federalism in reservation policy, judicial review and sub-classification and caste data. All are recurring GS-II themes [2].

2. Why in the News

• On Monday, 12 October 2026, the Karnataka HC struck down the enhanced SC/ST quota provisions. The Hindu called this a "major blow to the State government" [1].
• It was reported in The Hindu, 13 October 2026, Page 9 (Chennai edition) [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1992: In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (nine-judge bench), the Supreme Court fixed a 50% ceiling on reservations, allowing it to be crossed only in "extraordinary situations" [2].
• 2020: The Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das Commission recommended raising the SC quota from 15% to 17% and the ST quota from 3% to 7% in Karnataka [2].
• October 2022: Karnataka brought in the increase by ordinance. In December 2022 it was replaced by the 2022 Act, which took total reservation to about 56% [2]. The Act itself is confirmed by [1].
• November 2022: In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the 10% EWS quota by a 3:2 majority. It also said the 50% ceiling is not inviolable for EWS [2].
• May 2021: In Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil, the Supreme Court struck down the Maratha quota for breaching 50% without extraordinary circumstances [2].
• 12 October 2026: The Karnataka HC struck down Sections 3 and 4 of the 2022 Act [1].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The ruling reaffirms the 50% rule as a binding limit on State reservation laws [1].
• It shows judicial review at work: specific sections were declared ultra vires while the rest of the Act was left intact [1].
• It leaves open whether the EWS ruling (Janhit Abhiyan) has weakened the 50% ceiling as a rigid rule. This is a likely issue on appeal [2].

Social

• SC/ST groups argue their population share has grown since quotas were set on older Census figures. The court weighed that demand against equality of opportunity under Art. 16(1) [2].
• It connects to the issue of sub-classification within SCs, since Karnataka has an internal SC reservation debate [2].

Governance / Federalism

• It highlights a recurring pattern: States legislate quotas above 50% (Tamil Nadu at 69%, Maharashtra, Bihar) and courts intervene [2].
• Shows the need for quantifiable data (caste census or commission reports) to justify "extraordinary situations" [2].

Political / Administrative

• The judgment was a setback for the State government [1].
• It creates uncertainty for admissions and recruitments already made under the enhanced quota. Transition or saving arrangements are likely in focus [2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 12 October 2026: The Karnataka HC Division Bench struck down Sections 3 and 4 of the 2022 Act [1].
• An appeal by the State to the Supreme Court is the expected next step. This could not be verified [2].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The Karnataka HC struck down the SC/ST quota increase on 12 October 2026 [1].
• The verdict came from a Division Bench, not a single judge or a full bench [1].
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka SC/ST Reservation Act, 2022 were declared ultra vires [1].
• The court's ground was that crossing the 50% ceiling was "constitutionally impermissible" [1].
• The 50% ceiling comes from Indra Sawhney (1992), decided by a nine-judge bench [2].
• Karnataka's proposed figures were SC 17% and ST 7%, up from 15% and 3% [2].
• The increase was recommended by the Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das Commission [2].
• The EWS quota (10%) was upheld in Janhit Abhiyan (2022) by a 3:2 majority [2].
• Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation law is the only one placed in the Ninth Schedule, through the 76th Amendment (1994) [2].
• Ninth Schedule laws added after 24 April 1973 are reviewable under I.R. Coelho (2007) [2].
• Reservation in promotions for SC/ST rests on Art. 16(4A), added by the 77th Amendment (1995) [2].

8. Why the EWS Ruling Could Not Rescue Karnataka's Law

• The EWS judgment loosened the 50% limit, but only for EWS
• In Janhit Abhiyan (2022), the Supreme Court said the 50% ceiling applies to reservations for SC/ST and OBC (Other Backward Classes) [5].
• The 10% EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) quota is for people outside these groups. So the court allowed it to sit above the 50% line [5].

• Karnataka's 2022 Act raised the SC and ST shares, and those are exactly the categories that stay under the ceiling. So the EWS ruling gave the State no cover.

• This creates a real unfairness that aspirants should be able to state

• Today a quota based on economic status can go above 50%. A quota for SC/ST, based on caste and historical exclusion, cannot.
• The ceiling was fixed in 1992 by a nine-judge bench in the Mandal case [5]. Janhit Abhiyan had only five judges, so it could not overrule that bench.
• Only a bench larger than nine judges can settle whether one rule should cover both kinds of quota. Until then, High Courts must follow Indra Sawhney, as the Karnataka HC did [1].

9. The Strongest Case for the State — and Where It Falls Short

• The State's best argument: the 50% line is out of date
• The SC/ST shares (15% and 3%) were fixed long ago. The State argued that these communities are now a larger part of the population [2].
• The Act's own preamble notes that many other States have already crossed the 50% limit [4].

• The law was not the plan of one party. In December 2022 the Karnataka Assembly passed it unanimously (every member voted yes) [8].

• What this argument gets right

• The 50% ceiling is not written in the Constitution. Judges created it [2]. Asking them to look at it again is fair.

• A larger community kept within an old percentage gets a smaller share per person every year.

• Why it still failed in court

• Indra Sawhney allows crossing 50% only in an "extraordinary situation" (a rare case that is truly different from normal) [2].
• In the Maratha case, Maharashtra's own commission called the community's condition "extraordinary and exceptional". The Supreme Court did not accept that [6].
• So the courts want proof of the exception, not just a statement of it. A bigger population alone does not prove that the 50% rule must be broken.
• All parties agreeing on a law shows political support. It does not make the law constitutional.

10. Why the Ninth Schedule Was Never a Safe Shield

• The State planned to protect the law through the Ninth Schedule from the start
• In October 2022 a Karnataka minister said the State would ask for the quota to be put in the Ninth Schedule [9]. That Schedule is a list of laws given extra protection from court challenge.

• Only Parliament can add a law to it, through a constitutional amendment. Karnataka cannot do it alone, so its law depended on the Centre acting.

• Even if Parliament had acted, the protection would have been partial

• Under I.R. Coelho (2007), courts can still test any law added after 24 April 1973 against the basic structure (the core features of the Constitution that even Parliament cannot change) [2].
• Courts treat equality as part of the basic structure. So a quota that breaks the 50% rule could still be challenged.
• Tamil Nadu's 69% law has survived mainly because cases against it are still pending [2]. That makes it a weak model to copy.

11. The Cycle of States Passing Laws and Courts Striking Them Down

• Maharashtra shows the pattern clearly
• May 2021: the Supreme Court struck down the Maratha quota law. It also refused to send the Mandal ruling to a larger bench [6].
• February 2024: the Maharashtra Assembly passed a new law giving Marathas 10% reservation, again above the 50% limit [7].

• Karnataka now faces the same choice: appeal, pass a new law, or redesign the quota.

• Why the cycle keeps repeating

• Governments get the political credit on the day the law passes. The courts strike it down years later.

• Students and job candidates selected in between pay the price. Their seats or posts become uncertain.

• The pressure in Karnataka is growing, not easing

• In 2025, Karnataka's caste survey report recommended raising the backward class quota from 32% to 51% [10].
• Adding that to the existing SC/ST quotas would push total reservation far above 56%. Under the current case law, that is even harder to defend.

12. What Each Actor Can Do Next

• Karnataka: prove the case community by community
• In the Maratha case, a general claim of backwardness did not satisfy the court [6].
• The State should use its caste survey [10] to show three things for each group: its share of the population, how far it is behind, and how few of its members hold State jobs.

• This is the quantifiable data (hard numbers) test the Supreme Court used for promotions in M. Nagaraj (2006) [2].

• Karnataka: share the existing quota more fairly, which does not need crossing 50%

• State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) lets States divide the SC quota into sub-groups [2].

• Karnataka's demand for an internal split within the SC quota can be met inside the current 17% [2]. This answers part of the fairness problem without breaking the ceiling.

• Supreme Court: settle the ceiling question once

• After the EWS ruling, one category can exceed 50% and others cannot [5].

• A bench larger than nine judges should decide whether the ceiling is a fixed rule or a flexible guide. Otherwise every State law will be fought out case by case.

• Parliament: if the 50% limit is to change, change it openly

• The 103rd Amendment created the EWS quota through a constitutional amendment, not a State law [2].
• Raising the limit for SC/ST should go the same way: a debated amendment, not a State law that is likely to be struck down.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Karnataka's 2022 hike took SC from 15% to 17% and ST from 3% to 7%, so total reservation reached about 56% [3]
• Data: Karnataka's 2025 caste survey report recommended raising the backward class quota from 32% to 51% [10]
• Report/Committee: Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das Commission (2020), whose recommendation was the basis for the SC/ST increase
• Law/Case: Indra Sawhney (1992) for the 50% ceiling; Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (2021), where the Maratha quota was struck down for lack of an exceptional case [6]; Janhit Abhiyan (2022), which held the ceiling applies to SC/ST/OBC but not EWS [5]; I.R. Coelho (2007) on the limits of Ninth Schedule protection
• Comparison: Maharashtra passed a new Maratha quota above 50% in 2024, three years after its earlier law was struck down [7]; Tamil Nadu's 69% law is protected through the Ninth Schedule

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: "Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections… mechanisms, laws, institutions and bodies constituted for the protection of these sections"; "Indian Constitution — significant provisions and basic structure"; "Structure, organisation and functioning of the Judiciary."
• GS-I: "Social empowerment" and caste dynamics.
• Possible question stems: 1. The 50% ceiling on reservations is a judicial creation and not a constitutional mandate. Critically examine in light of recent State legislations and court rulings. 2. Do the recent judgments on EWS reservation dilute the Indra Sawhney ceiling? Discuss with reference to State attempts to enhance SC/ST quotas. 3. Evaluate the role of empirical data and independent commissions in justifying reservation beyond 50%.

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Indra Sawhney (1992): the source of the 50% ceiling and the creamy-layer concept.
• Janhit Abhiyan (2022) and the 103rd Amendment: the EWS quota beyond 50%.
• State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024): permits sub-classification within SCs/STs.
• Maratha quota case (2021): a precedent for striking down State quotas above 50%.
• Tamil Nadu 69% and the Ninth Schedule: the only constitutional shield used so far.
• Caste surveys (Bihar 2023, Karnataka): the data basis for "extraordinary situations".
• M. Nagaraj (2006) and Jarnail Singh (2018): quantifiable data in promotion quotas.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Fifty per cent ceiling on reservations (Polity): The ruling turns on this 50% limit, which the State's higher SC/ST quota crossed.
• Indra Sawhney case (Polity): This 1992 judgment created the 50% cap the High Court applied to strike down the law.
• Janhit Abhiyan case (Polity): It said the 50% cap is not rigid for EWS quota, so it may be used in appeal.
• Judicial review (Polity): Courts used this power to declare Sections 3 and 4 of the Act invalid.
• Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation (Polity): Tamil Nadu's 69% quota is the main example of a State going above 50%.
• Ninth Schedule (Polity): It is the shield some States use for high quotas, but it is open to review.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• The 50% ceiling is not in the Constitution's text. It is a judicial rule from Indra Sawhney [2].
• A State cannot add or remove communities in SC/ST lists. Only the President notifies them and only Parliament can amend them (Arts. 341/342). A State can only change the percentage of reservation [2].
• The HC struck down Sections 3 and 4, not the whole Act [1].
• Ninth Schedule inclusion does not give full immunity from judicial review after I.R. Coelho [2].
• Do not mix up the EWS exception with SC/ST quotas. Janhit Abhiyan dealt with EWS, a separate class [2].