Karnataka Appeals to the Supreme Court After the High Court Strikes Down Its 56% Reservation Law
The Karnataka government has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. It is challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment that struck down the state's higher reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
On 12 October 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court (Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha) struck down Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 2022.
That 2022 law raised the SC quota from 15% to 17% and the ST quota from 3% to 7%. With the 32% quota for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) unchanged, total reservation went up from 50% to 56%.
The High Court called the hike "constitutionally impermissible". It said the law broke the 50% ceiling set by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (1992), and so violated Articles 14, 15 and 16. A larger population share, it said, lets a state reserve within 50%, not go beyond it.
The court also found that the state had not consulted the National Commissions for SCs and STs before making the law. This consultation is compulsory under Articles 338(9) and 338A(9). Letters sent after the law was challenged did not count.
The state had earlier asked the Union government to place the higher quotas in the Ninth Schedule, which gives some protection from court challenges. The Centre put off the request because the case was pending. Recruitment already done under the higher quota stays subject to the final court outcome.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): The 50% Ceiling Rule
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India is the Supreme Court's most important judgment on reservation. A nine-judge bench upheld 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs, which came from the Mandal Commission report. In the same judgment, the Court said that total reservation should normally not go above 50%. It allowed a higher figure only in "extraordinary situations", such as far-flung and remote areas whose people are kept out of the mainstream.
The High Court applied the Indra Sawhney ceiling directly. It held that Karnataka's figure of 56% was not justified by any extraordinary situation, and that a population-based argument does not let a state cross 50%. The state's SLP now asks the Supreme Court to look at this question again.
Special Leave Petition (Article 136)
A Special Leave Petition is a request to the Supreme Court for permission ("leave") to appeal against a judgment of any court or tribunal in India. It comes from Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has full discretion: it can agree to hear the appeal or refuse without giving reasons. If it grants leave, the petition becomes a regular appeal and is heard in full.
Karnataka used Article 136 to challenge the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court will first decide whether to grant leave. If it does, the state's case on its 56% reservation will be heard as a full appeal.
The Ninth Schedule: Laws Shielded from Court Challenge
The Ninth Schedule is a list of central and state laws attached to the Constitution. Laws placed in it, under Article 31B, cannot be challenged on the ground that they violate Fundamental Rights. It was created by the First Amendment in 1951 to protect land reform laws. A law enters the list only through a constitutional amendment passed by Parliament, so a state alone cannot add its own law.
Karnataka had asked the Union government to put its higher SC and ST quotas in the Ninth Schedule, as Tamil Nadu did. The Centre deferred the request while the case was pending. Even if the quotas are added later, the I.R. Coelho ruling means courts could still test them against the basic structure.
- Karnataka 2022 Act: SC quota 15% to 17%; ST quota 3% to 7%; OBC 32% unchanged; total 50% to 56%
- High Court judgment: 12 October 2026; Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha
- Struck down: Sections 3 and 4 of the 2022 Act (violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16)
- The hike followed the Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das Commission's recommendation; first brought in by an ordinance in October 2022, then by the 2022 Act
- Consultation with the National Commission for SCs (Article 338(9)) and for STs (Article 338A(9)) is compulsory before policy decisions affecting these groups
- 50% ceiling: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), nine-judge bench
- SLP: Article 136; Ninth Schedule: Article 31B, First Amendment 1951; I.R. Coelho (2007) cut-off date 24 April 1973