In a significant move, the Bihar Assembly, on November 9, unanimously passed the “Bihar Reservation Amendment Bill,” aiming to elevate reservations for Backward Classes (BCs), Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs) from the existing 50% to an ambitious 65%. Coupled with the 10% quota for the Economically Backward Class (EWS), this legislative endeavor seeks to push Bihar’s reservation to an unprecedented 75%, surpassing the established 50% ceiling mandated by the Supreme Court.
The rationale behind the 50% limit, as articulated in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) case, was to strike a delicate balance between the equality of opportunity mandated by Article 16(1) and the imperative for adequate representation of BCs under Article 16(4). However, the Supreme Court acknowledged the possibility of exceptions to this cap in exceptional circumstances, emphasizing the need for quantifiable data to justify such breaches, as reiterated in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006).
While Bihar joins several states that have attempted to exceed the 50% cap, questions arise regarding the accuracy and reliability of the quantifiable data provided by the states. The recently released “Bihar Caste-based Survey 2022” reveals notable inconsistencies, particularly in the percentage composition of SCs and Forward Castes (FCs). The growth rates presented seem incongruent with the 2011 census data, prompting concerns about the reliability of the survey data.
Critically, the Bihar caste census suggests a considerable increase in the SC population, which appears implausible when compared to the marginal growth recorded between the 2001 and 2011 censuses. Moreover, the composition of forward castes, including Muslim castes, raises statistical eyebrows, with potential implications for the legitimacy of breaching the 50% ceiling.
The key question transcends the numerical debates: Does breaching the reservation ceiling genuinely serve the cause of social justice, or does it risk becoming a political strategy? The recent report from the Rohini Commission challenges the efficacy of vertical reservations, proposing horizontal sub-reservations within OBCs as an alternative. The commission’s findings expose a stark reality where a handful of politically dominant OBC communities garner the majority of reservation benefits, leaving a significant number of OBC communities with zero representation.
In essence, even if the Bihar Reservation Amendment Bill manages to justify its exception to the 50% rule, there remains a concern that it could become a political maneuver benefiting a select few, rather than addressing the broader goal of social justice. These intricacies warrant careful consideration in the ongoing discourse surrounding Bihar’s reservation landscape.
