Krishika Dinesh Rathod, Pune
The Bihar government has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the high court’s ruling to revoke the government’s plan to raise the reservation percentage from 50% to 65%.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to stay the Patna High Court’s ruling, which had eliminated Bihar’s 65% backward class quota.
The Bihar government has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the high court’s ruling to revoke the government’s plan to raise the reservation percentage from 50% to 65%. The Supreme Court announced that a thorough hearing on the case will be held in September.
On November 7, 2023, the Nitish-led Mahagathbandhan government raised the Bihar quota slab to 65 per cent.
The Bihar Assembly’s 2023 changes were invalidated on June 20 by a division bench of the Patna High Court, which ruled that they went outside the scope of the constitution and violated the equality clause found in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. Following that, on July 2, the government of Bihar, led by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, filed a case in the Supreme Court contesting the ruling of the high court.
Interestingly, the Reservation Amendment Bill was approved by the Bihar Assembly in November 2023. In the absence of Nitish Kumar, the bill was approved by the state assembly. 20% of the revised reserve quota was allocated to Scheduled Castes, 2% to Scheduled Tribes, 43% to Other Backward Classes, and 20% to Extremely Backward Classes.
The reservation was increased to 75% in contrast to the 50% ceiling set by the Supreme Court when paired with the 10% quota for the Economic Weaker Section. A three-judge panel led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud announced that it will accept the case and consider it in September, but that it would not provide any temporary relief, such as a stay on the Patna High Court’s June 20, 2024, ruling.
Justices Manoj Misra and J B Pardiwala were also on the bench. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the Bihar government, said that the Supreme Court had issued an interim ruling in a matter that was similar to one involving Chhattisgarh and he thus urged for a stay of the high court verdict. However, CJI Chandrachud drew attention to the fact that the high court had determined that reserved candidates already makeup 68% of the civil service. Divan stated that the case could need to be brought before a higher bench. He made the following submission and encouraged the bench to at least give notice on the prayer for interim relief: “If that’s so, it becomes important to have a well-considered view as far as the appropriate interim arrangement is concerned. However, the court declined to do so, stating that it would “simply grant leave and hear the matter.”