Karnataka Government to Challenge High Court's 56% Reservation Ruling in Supreme Court

Karnataka to Challenge High Court's 56% Reservation Ruling in Supreme Court

The Karnataka government has decided to file a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the state High Court's October 12, 2026, order that struck down reservation provisions exceeding the 50% constitutional ceiling. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha had invalidated 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, which increased SC reservations from 15% to 17% and ST reservations from 3% to 7%, bringing total reservation to 56%.

The bench found that the state had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify exceeding the 50% reservation ceiling established by Supreme Court precedent. The ruling invalidated the additional 6% in reservations that the state law had attempted to provide, creating immediate uncertainty for SC and ST candidates who may have benefited from the higher percentages and for institutions implementing the quotas.

Supreme Court petition strategy

The Special Leave Petition will place the matter before the Supreme Court, where the state must argue that its case meets criteria for setting aside the High Court's decision. The state's legal team will need to construct arguments distinguishing this case from prior Supreme Court rulings on the 50% ceiling or demonstrating that exceptional circumstances exist in Karnataka's specific context. The petition process allows the Supreme Court to decide whether to admit the challenge and, if admitted, to review the constitutional and legal questions at stake.

Ninth Schedule protection pathway

Parallel to the Supreme Court petition, a committee led by Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar is exploring whether the state can seek Ninth Schedule protection for the reservation law. The Ninth Schedule of the Constitution lists laws protected from judicial review on the ground that they violate fundamental rights. If a law is added to the Ninth Schedule through constitutional amendment, courts cannot strike it down as violating Articles 14, 19, or 21. This avenue would require legislative action at the national level, as only Parliament can amend the Ninth Schedule. The committee's exploration suggests the state is pursuing multiple legal and constitutional strategies to preserve or restore the increased reservation percentages.

The October 12 ruling came after the state enacted the 2022 Act to provide greater educational and employment opportunities to SC and ST communities. The government had argued that the increase was necessary to address historical inequities and ensure adequate representation. However, the High Court found that the state's submissions did not contain sufficient evidence or reasoning to overcome the Supreme Court's established 50% ceiling doctrine.

The Supreme Court's 50% limit has been a foundational principle in Indian reservation law since Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). That case held that total reservation across all categories should not exceed 50% of seats or posts, except in exceptional circumstances. Subsequent judgments have refined and reaffirmed this ceiling. The High Court applied this precedent to strike down the Karnataka law, reasoning that the state had not presented the kind of exceptional demographic, social, or historical evidence that might justify an exception.

Political and operational fallout

The state's decision to challenge the order reflects the political and social significance of the reservation issue in Karnataka. SC and ST communities constitute a substantial portion of the state's population, and reservation policy directly affects their access to education and government employment. The 2022 Act represented a policy choice by the state government to prioritize increased representation for these groups. The High Court's invalidation of that choice now triggers the constitutional and legal battle that will play out in the Supreme Court.

Educational institutions and government departments in Karnataka currently face ambiguity about which reservation percentages to apply. The High Court's October 12 order technically struck down the increased percentages, but institutions may be waiting for clarity on whether that order remains in effect pending the Supreme Court petition, or whether they should revert to the pre-2022 percentages. The state government may issue guidance to resolve this operational uncertainty, or the Supreme Court may grant interim relief if petitioned to do so.

The case also raises questions about federalism and the scope of state authority in reservation policy. While the Constitution grants states the power to make laws on reservation, that power is exercised within the framework of constitutional limits, including the 50% ceiling. The High Court's decision asserts that this ceiling is binding on the state, even if the state believes exceptional circumstances exist. The Supreme Court's eventual response will clarify the degree of flexibility that states have in arguing for exceptions.

The Special Leave Petition will be filed in the coming weeks, initiating a process that could take months or years to resolve. The Supreme Court will first decide whether to admit the petition, a step that requires showing that the case raises substantial questions of law or public importance. If admitted, the court will then hear arguments from both the state and any parties opposing the petition, before issuing a judgment on the merits. Until the Supreme Court rules, the High Court's October 12 order remains in effect, and the 2022 Act's increased reservation percentages are invalid.