The Supreme Court on Monday declined to stay the Patna High Court’s decision overturning the amended reservation laws in Bihar. These laws had allowed the Nitish Kumar government to increase quotas for Dalits, tribals, and backward classes from 50 percent to 65 percent.
A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra agreed to hear 10 petitions filed by the Bihar government challenging the Patna High Court’s verdict. However, the Supreme Court did not issue notices on the petitions and stated that they would be listed for hearing in September.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing the state government, requested the bench to stay the high court’s order, citing a similar case in Chhattisgarh where the Supreme Court had stayed the high court’s order. Besides seeking a stay, Divan also requested the issuance of notices to the respondents who had challenged the enhanced quota limit in the high court.
Chief Justice Chandrachud responded, “We will list the matter, but we will not grant any stay (on the HC verdict)… No interim relief granted at the present stage,” and did not issue notices on the pleas.
Previously, the state government had appealed to the top court against the high court’s judgement. On June 20, the Patna High Court declared that the amendments, passed unanimously by Bihar’s bicameral legislature in November last year, were “ultra vires” of the Constitution, “bad in law,” and “violative of the equality clause.”
The high court’s division bench had upheld several petitions challenging the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2023, and the Bihar (in admission in educational institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, while leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
In its detailed 87-page judgement, the high court noted that there were “no extenuating circumstances enabling the state to breach” the 50-percent cap on reservations established by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case. The court observed that the state relied solely on the proportion of the population of different categories rather than their numerical representation in government services and educational institutions.
The amendments followed a caste survey indicating that Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) constituted approximately 63 percent of the state’s total population, while Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) accounted for more than 21 percent. This survey was conducted by the Bihar government after the Centre indicated it could not undertake a fresh headcount of castes other than SCs and STs, which was last done during the 1931 Census.
