 |
|
The Supreme Court of India has declined to grant a stay on a Patna High Court judgment that declared unconstitutional the Bihar government's legislation increasing quotas for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to 65% from 50% in state government jobs and educational institutions. This decision leaves the High Court order in effect, effectively halting the implementation of the increased quota system in Bihar.
The Bihar government had argued for a stay on the High Court's verdict, citing the ongoing recruitment process based on the two 2023 laws that introduced the increased quotas. They highlighted the hundreds of interviews currently underway, emphasizing the potential disruption and disruption caused by halting the process. However, the Supreme Court, composed of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, rejected the government's plea for interim relief.
Bihar's case for the quota increase rested on the argument that the state conducted a caste survey in 2022-23, which revealed a significant disparity in representation. The government argued that despite decades of affirmative action programs, less than 18% of government employees belong to communities representing 85% of the population. They claimed that the High Court's decision failed to acknowledge the reality of this disparity, highlighting the need for additional support and representation for backward classes.
However, the Supreme Court's decision reflects a complex legal landscape regarding reservations in India. The 1992 Indra Sawhney case established a 50% ceiling on reservations, a precedent that has been influential in shaping subsequent legal challenges. The Bihar government attempted to distinguish its case from the 2021 Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil case, which saw the quashing of Maharashtra's quota law for the Maratha community, exceeding the 50% limit. They argued that Bihar had fulfilled the Indra Sawhney judgment's prerequisite by conducting a socio-economic survey to demonstrate the backwardness of the communities seeking greater representation. The Supreme Court's refusal to stay the High Court order suggests that the court may find the arguments presented by Bihar insufficient to justify exceeding the established 50% reservation limit.
The case underscores the ongoing debate around affirmative action and quota systems in India. While these policies aim to address historical inequalities and ensure representation for marginalized communities, they also raise questions about fairness, merit, and the potential for unintended consequences. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will likely have significant implications for future legal challenges concerning reservation policies across India.
Source: Supreme Court refuses to stay high court order quashing hike in Bihar quota