Patna: In a significant blow to the Nitish Kumar-led government, the Patna High Court has struck down the decision to increase reservation for Extremely Backward Classes (EBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST) to 65%.
The high court’s ruling invalidates the Bihar government’s law that had raised caste-based reservations to 65% in government jobs and higher educational institutions. This decision was based on a caste survey report conducted by the Mahagathbandhan government under Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. With the inclusion of the 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS), the total reservation quota in Bihar had risen to 75%.
Violation of Equality Clause
The court found the Bihar Reservation Amendment Act, 2023, and the Bihar Reservation Amendment Act for Educational Institutions, 2023, in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which pertain to the right to equality. Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar delivered the judgment after petitions challenged the amendments introduced by the Bihar legislature in 2023.
Legal Challenge and Court’s Decision
The organization Youth for Equality filed the initial challenge against the increased reservation. The bench, led by the Chief Justice, has now annulled the law that sought to enhance the reservation quotas. Petitioner Gaurav Kumar and others had filed their petitions, and the court had reserved its decision after a hearing on March 11. The verdict was pronounced today, invalidating the 65% reservation increment.
Broader Implications
The court’s decision underscores the ongoing debate about reservation policies and their impact on societal equality. This ruling not only affects job seekers and students in Bihar but also sets a precedent for similar policies across India.
Political Reactions and Future Steps
The ruling has prompted varied political reactions, with implications for future legislative actions and potential appeals to higher judicial authorities. The Nitish Kumar government now faces the challenge of reassessing its approach to affirmative action and reservation policies in light of the court’s decision.
