Siddaramaiah seeks 75% quota for OBCs, Dalits & minorities in jobs, legislature
A renewed public demand emerged in Karnataka for raising reservation in public employment and the state legislature to 75% for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes and religious minorities, in proportion to their share of the state's population.
The demand is linked to the state's caste survey (conducted by the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes), which reportedly found that around 70% of the state's population falls under various OBC categories; calls were made for the pending survey report to be released and implemented.
Caste-wise population data was described as essential to defending reservation policies in court, reflecting the broader legal requirement that reservation beyond ordinary limits must be backed by quantifiable data.
Earlier attempts by states to conduct and act on caste-based enumeration exercises have faced procedural objections and judicial stays, underscoring the contested legal status of state-conducted caste surveys.
The 50% Ceiling on Reservations — Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, deciding the challenge to the Mandal Commission's 27% OBC reservation, held that total reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) ordinarily cannot exceed 50% of available seats or posts, including when the "carry-forward rule" is applied to unfilled reserved vacancies. The ruling also introduced the "creamy layer" exclusion for OBCs and held that reservation could apply only to initial appointments, not promotions.
Key Details
- Decided 16 November 1992, by a 9-judge bench.
- The 50% rule is treated as a general principle, not an absolute constitutional mandate — the judgment itself contemplated exceptions "in extraordinary situations."
- Article 15(4) (special provisions for socially/educationally backward classes and SC/ST) and Article 16(4) (reservation in public employment for backward classes inadequately represented in state services) are the constitutional basis for such reservations.
Any demand to raise reservation to 75% for OBCs, SCs and minorities combined would breach the Indra Sawhney ceiling, which is why proponents of higher quotas emphasise the need for robust caste-wise population data — a state seeking to breach 50% must demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" with quantifiable evidence, as later cases have clarified.
The EWS Route Around the Ceiling — 103rd Amendment and Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)
The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6), creating a 10% reservation for "Economically Weaker Sections" (EWS) among the general (non-SC/ST/OBC) category, in education and public employment. The Supreme Court upheld its validity in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) by a 3:2 majority.
Key Details
- Enacted 9 January 2019; EWS reservation is capped at 10% and applies over and above existing SC/ST/OBC reservation.
- The majority held that breaching the 50% ceiling for EWS alone (taking total reservation beyond 50% in states that already have SC/ST/OBC quotas) does not violate the basic structure, since the ceiling was a judicially evolved rule, not a rigid constitutional limit.
- The dissenting judges held that excluding SC/ST/OBC citizens from EWS reservation was itself discriminatory and violated the equality code.
Janhit Abhiyan is the clearest precedent for a court-sanctioned breach of the 50% ceiling, but it was economic-criterion reservation for the general category — it does not, by itself, provide legal cover for demands to raise SC/OBC/minority reservation to 75%, which would require the state to independently justify "extraordinary circumstances" under Indra Sawhney.
Failed and Successful Attempts to Cross the Ceiling — Maratha Reservation vs Tamil Nadu's 69%
Two contrasting precedents show how far states can go in breaching the 50% cap. The Maharashtra government's 2018 law granting the Maratha community reservation (taking the state's total reservation to around 68%) was struck down in Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra (2021), with a 5-judge bench unanimously reaffirming the Indra Sawhney ceiling as good law. By contrast, Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation law has survived because it was placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.
Key Details
- Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (5 May 2021): the Maratha quota law was struck down for failing to show the "extraordinary circumstances" needed to breach 50%, and for not being based on a fresh, robust backward-class survey.
- Tamil Nadu's Backward Classes, SC and ST (Reservation of Seats and Appointments) Act, 1993 (69% reservation) was inserted into the Ninth Schedule via the Constitution (76th Amendment) Act, 1994, giving it protection from judicial review under Article 31-B.
- The Ninth Schedule route is now constrained: in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) can still be tested against the basic structure doctrine, including the equality code.
These two cases frame the legal reality facing any 75% reservation demand: without either a Ninth Schedule shield or a state-specific finding of "extraordinary circumstances" backed by robust data, a reservation level of 75% would very likely be struck down on the same grounds as the Maratha quota.
Caste Enumeration — Census vs State-Conducted Caste Surveys
Conducting the decennial Census is a Union subject under Entry 69 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule), governed by the Census Act, 1948, and it has not enumerated caste (beyond SC/ST) since 1931. States seeking caste-wise data instead conduct their own socio-economic and caste surveys under general state data-collection powers, such as the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008.
Calls to release and implement a pending caste survey report reflect this evidentiary requirement — courts reviewing any reservation enhancement will scrutinise whether the underlying caste data is robust, current, and methodologically sound, as was found lacking in the Maratha reservation case.
- 50% reservation ceiling: laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992, 9-judge bench).
- EWS reservation: 10%, via the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 (Articles 15(6), 16(6)); upheld 3:2 in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022).
- Maratha reservation (Maharashtra, ~68% total): struck down in Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra (5 May 2021).
- Tamil Nadu reservation: 69%, protected via the Constitution (76th Amendment) Act, 1994, placing the Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 in the Ninth Schedule.
- Ninth Schedule laws post-24 April 1973 remain subject to basic structure review: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).
- Census is a Union List subject (Entry 69, Seventh Schedule) under the Census Act, 1948; caste has not been enumerated in the decennial Census since 1931.