The High Court of Karnataka has struck down the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 2022, ruling that the legislation is unconstitutional for breaching the 50 percent reservation ceiling. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha declared both Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act null and void, asserting that the expansion of quotas for Scheduled Castes (SC) from 15 percent to 17 percent and Scheduled Tribes (ST) from 3 percent to 7 percent violates the foundational equality principles of the Constitution.

The court’s decision settles a prolonged legal challenge against the retrospective implementation of the reservation hike, which had pushed the aggregate reservation in Karnataka to 56 percent. The bench determined that the 50 percent limit established in previous landmark rulings is not a mere rule of prudence or an elastic guideline dependent on demographic data, but a mandatory structural ceiling essential to preserve the balance between affirmative action and the right to equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16.

The judgment clarifies that the State’s argument regarding demographic changes and the alleged inadequacy of representation did not constitute an " extraordinary circumstance " sufficient to justify a departure from the established ceiling. The court emphasized that the 50 percent limit serves as a critical threshold to prevent reverse discrimination , observing that, "Any reservation in excess thereof would breach the equality clauses , which would be impermissible."

Procedural Failures and Statutory Violations

Beyond the breach of the reservation cap, the court identified a critical procedural omission: the State’s failure to consult the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes prior to the enactment of the law. Under Articles 338(9) and 338A(9) of the Constitution, the government is constitutionally mandated to consult these bodies on all major policy matters affecting SC and ST communities.

The government had relied on correspondence sent to these commissions in late 2025 and early 2026 —years after the Act was passed—to argue that the consultation requirement had been satisfied. The court summarily rejected this, clarifying that meaningful and effective consultation must precede any legislative decision. The bench observed, "Consultation, to be meaningful and effective, must precede the decision."

Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced a 10 percent quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), justified breaching the 50 percent threshold for other backward classes. The bench held that the EWS quota is a distinct category carved out from the general merit pool and does not authorize states to enlarge reservations for SC, ST, or other backward categories beyond the settled limit.

Proportionality vs. Adequate Representation

A central pillar of the State’s defense was the contention that because SC and ST communities constitute nearly a quarter of Karnataka’s population, their representation in public services and educational institutions should reflect this demographic weight. The court, however, reiterated that the constitutional framework under Article 16(4) guarantees "adequate representation," not "proportionate representation."

The bench noted that the State’s attempt to equate the two was legally erroneous and contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Referring to the Constituent Assembly Debates, the court underscored that the reservation provisions were never designed to implement a system of proportional representation, which would be inherently divisive and contrary to the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity for all citizens.

"The scheme of these clauses must be read with Article 14 of the Constitution , which guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws . Once it is accepted that clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution cannot be construed as an exception to clause (1) of that Article , it is imperative to strike a balance in applying the said clauses. The 50% ceiling rule is the result of striking that balance," the judgment stated.

Impact on Ongoing Recruitment and Admissions

The High Court’s ruling places the status of current recruitment drives and admission processes in a state of flux. While the court had previously allowed certain recruitment processes to continue subject to the final outcome of the litigation, the judgment explicitly states that no equities can be claimed by candidates appointed under the now-struck-down provisions.

Candidates selected under the enhanced quota must now face the reality that their appointments were conditional. The court had directed that all appointment and promotion orders issued during the pendency of the litigation carry an express notice that such selections were subject to the final ruling. By striking down Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the court has effectively invalidated the basis for these enhanced quotas.

The State government has indicated that it intends to explore legal remedies, including a potential appeal before the Supreme Court. State leaders have also called upon the Union government to consider placing the legislation within the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution—a move that would grant it protection from judicial review. However, as the law currently stands, the reservation matrix in Karnataka must revert to the previous framework, where the aggregate quota for all reserved categories remains within the 50 percent limit.

The judgment concludes that while the State possesses the plenary power to legislate on matters of reservation, that power is not absolute. The exercise of such power is bounded by the parameters of the equality code . As the bench emphasized, "The ceiling limit of 50% has to be understood as circumscribing the power of the State to provide for reservation within the said parameters, notwithstanding the numerical strength of the backward classes."