When Mahendra Kumar Mitra filed a public‑interest litigation challenging the state’s latest reservation amendment, few could have predicted the speed with which the case would upend a policy shift enacted only months earlier. The petition argued that the government’s decision to push the aggregate reservation quota beyond the long‑standing 50% ceiling violated the constitution. On October 12, 2026, the Karnataka High Court heard the matter and, within the same day, delivered a verdict that sent the state’s reservation framework back to its previous limits.
The ruling came from a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha. Their joint opinion did more than merely strike a piece of legislation; it declared the amendment itself unconstitutional. By canceling the changes that had raised the Other Backward Classes (OBC) quota from 15 percent to 17 percent and the Scheduled Tribes (ST) quota from 3 percent to 7 percent, the court effectively reduced the total reservation share in Karnataka’s educational institutions and state government services from 56 percent back to the constitutionally accepted 50 percent.
The amendment the court nullified was not a spontaneous political maneuver. Earlier on the same day, the Justice Nagamohan Das Committee had submitted its recommendation to increase the quotas, citing fresh population data that, in its view, warranted a larger share for OBCs and STs. The committee’s report formed the technical backbone for the subsequent legislative move, positioning the increase as a data‑driven correction rather than a partisan decision.
By deeming the 56 percent figure unconstitutional, the bench reinforced the judiciary’s role as the final arbiter of affirmative‑action boundaries.
Basavaraj Bommai’s administration, then leading the state under a BJP banner, acted swiftly on the committee’s recommendation. Within hours of the report’s release, the government enacted the amendment that lifted OBC reservations by two percentage points and more than doubled the ST quota. The move raised the overall reservation percentage from the entrenched 50 percent to a striking 56 percent—a figure that immediately attracted legal scrutiny.
India’s reservation policy has long been anchored by a tacit 50 percent ceiling, a threshold the Supreme Court has described as the maximum permissible share of seats that can be set aside for historically disadvantaged groups. The Karnataka High Court’s decision reaffirmed this principle, emphasizing that any attempt to exceed the limit must survive rigorous constitutional scrutiny. By deeming the 56 percent figure unconstitutional, the bench reinforced the judiciary’s role as the final arbiter of affirmative‑action boundaries.
The ruling reverberated through Karnataka’s political corridors. The Basavaraj Bommai government, which had championed the increase as a corrective measure, found its policy thrust into the crosshairs of legal challenge. For supporters of the amendment, the decision was a setback; for opponents, it was a vindication of the 50 percent doctrine.
On paper, the increase would have expanded OBC representation from 15 percent to 17 percent and ST representation from 3 percent to 7 percent in both educational institutions and state services. Restoring the quotas to their former levels means that the additional 2 percent for OBCs and the extra 4 percent for STs will remain unavailable. For aspirants from these communities, the court’s decision translates into a continuation of the status quo—a reality that may feel both reassuring and limiting, depending on one’s perspective on affirmative action.
The Karnataka High Court’s judgment adds a fresh chapter to India’s evolving jurisprudence on reservations. By explicitly labeling the 56 percent ceiling as unconstitutional, the bench has set a precedent that other states seeking to expand their own quotas may now have to confront. The decision also re‑opens the broader conversation about how demographic data should influence reservation policy without breaching constitutional limits.
As of the ruling’s issuance on October 12, 2026, Karnataka’s reservation framework stands at the 50 percent mark, the same level that existed before the brief surge in the OBC and ST quotas. The court’s intervention has halted the immediate implementation of the committee’s recommendations, leaving the state’s policymakers to reassess how best to address representation concerns within constitutional bounds. The debate, however, is far from settled; the tension between demographic realities and legal ceilings continues to shape India’s affirmative‑action landscape.