Patna HC Seeks State Govt's Response On PIL Challenging Law Increasing Reservation To 65%, Refuses Interim Stay

Admitting a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the recent amendment passed by the Bihar Legislature to increase the reservation for Backward Classes, Extremely Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes from the existing 50% to 65%, the Patna HC has sought the reply of the state government in the matter within 4 weeks.

A bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy however refused to stay the law as an interim measure, as sought by the petitioners.

Essentially, the PIL plea challenges the constitutional validity of the Bihar Reservation (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Back Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2023, and the Bihar (in admission in educational institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023. 

For the uninitiated, the Bihar State Legislature enacted the 2023 Acts on November 10, 2023, and it received the Governor's Assent on November 18, 2023. Subsequently, the Government officially notified the act on November 21, 2023, through the Bihar Gazette.

Challenging the laws, the petitioners (Gaurav Kumar and Naman Sherstra) contended in the petition that the Amendments are based on proportional reservation derived from the Caste Census conducted by the state. This census calculated the population of the Backward Classes (SC, ST, OBC, and EBC) in the State of Bihar to be 63.13%.

The petitioners further contend that the Constitutional mandate, as outlined in Article 16(4) of the Constitution, requires reservations to be based on adequate representation of the Socially and Educationally Backward Class rather than the proportional representation of these classes within a specific state.

The petition mentions, “Hence, the 2023 Act passed by the Respondent State is in violation of Article 16 (1) of the Indian Constitution which provides an equality opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State and Article 15 (1) which prohibits any kind of under the State and Article 15 (1) which prohibits any kind of discrimination.”

“Also, the 2023 Acts passed by the Respondent State ​​violates the upper ceiling of 50 percent as set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney (Supra). The Respondent State has miserably failed to address the exceptional circumstances whatsoever that led to increase the ceiling of reservation beyond So percent and therefore the 2023 Acts is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. Also, the 2023 Acts passed by the State is in violation of Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution of India as the same suffers unreasonableness and manifest arbitrariness,” the petition adds.

The was filed by Advocate Alok Kumar.