Karnataka Deputy CM Parameshwara writes to Modi, Shah seeking inclusion of State’s SC/ST reservation law in Ninth Schedule on the lines of Tamil Nadu

The central issue here is the clash between state legislative action and the constitutional ceiling on reservations established by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. In the landmark Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) case, the apex court capped total reservations at 50%, stating that exceeding this limit violates the principle of equality under Article 14. Karnataka's 2022 Act pushed total reservations to 56% (17% for SCs, 7% for STs), leading the Karnataka High Court to strike it down. The state's strategy now relies on the Ninth Schedule, a constitutional mechanism introduced by the First Amendment Act, 1951. Laws placed in this schedule are generally shielded from judicial review (the power of courts to examine the constitutionality of a law). However, UPSC aspirants must note that the absolute immunity of the Ninth Schedule was removed by the I.R. Coelho Case (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are open to challenge if they violate the basic structure doctrine or the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.

This development highlights the complexities of affirmative action and the political pressures surrounding reservation policies in India. Karnataka's move mirrors the successful strategy of Tamil Nadu, which protected its 69% reservation quota by placing the relevant state act in the Ninth Schedule through the 76th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1994. The process requires the state to pass a resolution, which is then sent to the Centre. The Union Parliament must then pass a constitutional amendment under Article 368 to include the state law in the Ninth Schedule. The request by the Karnataka Deputy CM emphasizes the need for consultations with statutory bodies like the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. This underscores the procedural requirements and the multi-ministerial coordination (Law, Social Justice, Tribal Affairs, Home Affairs) necessary for such a constitutional amendment.

The debate over expanding reservations reflects the ongoing struggle for social justice and equitable representation for marginalized communities. The enhanced reservation in Karnataka was based on the recommendations of the Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das Commission. The rationale often provided by states for breaching the 50% cap is the demographic reality; the population of SC, ST, and OBC communities may significantly exceed 50% of the state's total population. The inclusion of such laws in the Ninth Schedule is viewed by these states as necessary to ensure proportional representation and to fulfill the mandate of substantive equality envisioned in the Constitution. However, critics argue that continuously expanding reservations undermines meritocracy and can lead to reverse discrimination, creating a complex social and legal challenge that the judiciary and legislature must continuously navigate.