The Patna HC judgment on reservation and its implications on future quota policies

Recently, the Patna High Court in Gaurav Kumar and Others vs State of Bihar and Ors. After independence, Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India laid down measures for reservations for the backward classes, where, Article 15 talks about educational institutions, though the word “adequate” is not used, however in Article 16, the provision reserves adequate representation and empowers the state to provide reservation in the public employment for any backward class that is inadequately represented. Therefore, it endorsed the policy decision to go ahead with the Mandal Commission recommendation for a 27% reservation for the backward classes with a total ceiling on the quotas of 50%, and also clarified that “adequate representation,” as envisaged in Article 16, should not be construed as “proportional representation.” While accepting that the proportion of the backward classes to the total population remains relevant, the Court reiterated that the real spirit of the Article is to ensure equality and equal opportunity for all citizens. Application of the 50% rule in the Bihar Reservation case The Court looked into the circumstances that led the State to increase reserve quotas over the provided 50% ceiling. The Court also noted that “the state of Bihar, not being a "far-flung or remote area," nor being "out of the mainstream of national life," does not meet the criteria for an "extraordinary situation" that would allow for an overreach of the 50% limit.” The recent judgment of the Patna High Court has its genesis from the principles set out by the SC in the Indra Sawhney, Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil and Janhit Abhiyan case.