SC refuses to stay Patna HC order on quotas

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, agreed to hear the Bihar government's 10 petitions challenging the High Court’s decision. The appeals have been admitted for hearing and are scheduled to be listed in September.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the Bihar government, requested the Supreme Court to stay the High Court's order. Divan drew parallels with a similar case in Chhattisgarh, where the Supreme Court had stayed a High Court ruling. However, Chief Justice Chandrachud noted that the Patna High Court had observed that 68 per cent of civil services positions were already occupied by reserved category candidates.

Divan also sought notices to be issued to the respondents who had challenged the enhanced quota limit in the High Court. The Chief Justice responded that while the matter would be listed, no interim relief would be granted at this stage. The bench did not issue notices on the pleas despite Divan's request for interim relief, stating, “We will simply grant leave and hear the matter.”

The Bihar government had previously appealed against the High Court's judgment. During the hearing, senior advocate Aparajitha Singh, representing the NGO Youth For Equality, argued that the Patna High Court had determined that the amended law led to exclusion.

On June 20, the Patna High Court declared that the amendments, which were passed unanimously by Bihar's legislature in November 2023, were "ultra vires" of the Constitution, "bad in law," and "violative of the equality clause." The court had overturned the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2023, and the Bihar (Admission in Educational Institutions) Reservation (Amendment) Act, 2023.

The High Court's 87-page judgment stated that the state had failed to justify breaching the 50 per cent cap on reservations established by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case. It criticised the state's approach of using population proportions rather than numerical representation in services and institutions.

The amendments followed a caste survey indicating that Other Backward Classes and Extremely Backward Classes constituted 63 per cent of Bihar’s population, while Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes made up over 21 per cent. This survey was conducted after the Centre declined to carry out a new caste headcount, the last of which was part of the 1931 Census.