Bengaluru: The cabinet will decide Thursday whether to challenge Karnataka high court order striking down the increase in reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) or seek the Centre’s help in placing the law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.HC Monday quashed a 2022 law that raised SC reservation from 15% to 17% and ST quota from 3% to 7%. With the existing 32% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), the total had risen to 56% — past the Supreme Court’s 50% ceiling. The court held that population share alone could not justify breaching the reservation ceiling.G Parameshwara, deputy CM, and minister KH Muniyappa, both prominent Dalit faces, have called for the 50% ceiling to be reviewed and urged the govt to explore the Tamil Nadu model, which protects reservation exceeding the limit through constitutional provisions.But Karnataka’s bid to retain its 56% quota faces a fundamental legal question: can the state establish exceptional circumstances justifying the breach through evidence of social disadvantage, or must it seek stronger constitutional protection?Tamil Nadu’s template is plausible, but not a guaranteed escape from judicial scrutiny. Its reservation crossed 50% decades ago, reaching 68% in 1980. Separating the ST quota from the SC allocation subsequently took the total to 69%.Supreme Court’s 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment established a general 50% ceiling, while allowing departures in exceptional circumstances. Tamil Nadu enacted legislation in 1993 to protect its higher quota. The Constitution (Seventy-sixth Amendment) Act, 1994, subsequently placed the law in the Ninth Schedule.However, this protection is not absolute. In its 2007 IR Coelho judgment, Supreme Court held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, could be reviewed if they damaged the Constitution’s basic structure.Karnataka, therefore, cannot assume that placing its quota law in the Ninth Schedule would automatically insulate it from challenge.Legal experts identify three possible routes: appeal the high court order, seek Ninth Schedule protection through the Centre, or assemble stronger evidence to address the court’s objections. The third route would require establishing a constitutionally sustainable justification for exceeding 50% and meeting applicable procedural requirements. The state would need to substantiate the extent of social and educational backwardness and demonstrate why the higher quota is necessary.High court advocate Hidayathulla Kuvenda said Karnataka’s case could become stronger if the 50% reservation cap is removed. He cited the 10% EWS quota and noted that the Indra Sawhney judgment allowed exceptions. “Tamil Nadu’s experience shows that political consensus and constitutional amendments can protect quotas above 50%, even if they do not rule out judicial challenges. Karnataka must build a strong legal case to retain its 56% quota,” he said.
