Rajasthan HC strikes down reservation for Gujjars, says govt failed to collect “quantifiable data”

Over the years, many communities in Rajasthan, including the Gujjars, have been demanding an additional reservation in educational institutions and services..Last year, widespread protests nearly brought the state to a standstill, even as the government ceded to their demands. As a compromise of sorts, the government notified a 5% ‘Special Backward Classes’ quota for the Gujjars and four other communities. And now a judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court striking down said reservation may well be another significant chapter in the history of the issue..Last Friday, a Division Bench of Justices MN Bhandari and JK Ranka held that there was no rationale behind introducing this new quota, especially since the five castes were already benefitting from OBC reservation..The judgment was passed in a batch of petitions, including one filed by Captain Gurvinder Singh, challenging the Rajasthan Special Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State) Act of 2015, and the notification bringing it into force..By way of background, in 2007, amid protests undertaken by the Gujjars, the state government sought to form a High Powered Committee, to be headed by former Rajasthan High Court judge, Justice Jasraj Chopra. The Committee was to look into the demands made by the community and to determine whether they were feasible..After the Committee submitted its report, the state passed the Rajasthan Special Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State) Act of 2008, under which five per cent reservation was provided for special backward classes, taking the total amount of reservation for admission in the educational institutions and services to 68%..In a challenge to this Act, the High Court passed a judgment dated December 2010, discrediting the Justice Chopra Committee report and directing the state government to reconsider enhancing the extent of reservation in the state. The court also referred the issue to the Rajasthan State Backward Classes Commission (SBCC), asking it to come up with “quantifiable data” pointing to the need for such reservation..The SBCC report recommended 5% special reservation to five castes, prompting the government to issue an order dated November 2012 to that effect. Once again, this move was challenged by the current petitioner before the High Court. In January 2013, the court passed an interim order staying the notification pending the disposal of the challenge. Later, the court would allow the Government to provide one per cent reservation in favour of special backward classes..At the risk of contradicting the court’s order, the state government went ahead and passed the Rajasthan Special Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State) Act of 2015, in light of the ongoing Gujjar protests crippling the state..The main issues before the court were whether there exists a ceiling of 50% reservation for posts in services and admission to educational institutions, and whether reservation can be based on caste..It is pertinent to note that a case previously decided by the Supreme Court sheds light upon these very issues..The judgment in MR Balaji & Ors v. State of Mysore delves into the concept of social backwardness, saying that caste cannot be the sole basis for determining the same. In that case, the reservation to the extent of 68% was taken to be in violation of the constitutional powers conferred on the State under Article 15(4) of the Constitution..However, as the respondents pointed out, in the Indra Sawhney case, it was held that the ceiling of 50% for reservations could be exceeded, in extraordinary situations. Another apex court decision in SV Joshi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka held that reservation exceeding 50% could be made only on the basis of quantifiable data before the Government..In this case, the court noted that the 81st amendment to the Constitution, which gave birth to Article 16(4)(B), “does not show permissibility of reservation above 50 per cent for the vacancies of the year. The exception is for backlog vacancies.”.On the scope of judicial review of government reservation policy, the court held,.“…when the criterion applied for identifying Backward Class is either perverse or per se defective or unrelated to such identification and even if, it is not calculated to give the result or is calculated to give, by the very nature of the criterion, a contrary or unintended result, the criterion is open for judicial examination.”.Which brings us to the report of the SBCC, which was the basis on which the state government decided to introduce these reservations..Poking holes in the report, the court held that it was based on incomplete data, and that it failed to prove the existence of an “extraordinary situation” warranting the introduction of a new category for five castes..It held,.“…the SBC Commission and the State Government have failed to discharge their obligation as per the directions of the Apex Court to collect quantifiable data.”.And with that, the court struck down the 2015 Act..During the course of the hearings, (then Senior Advocate, now a judge) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma had initially appeared for the petitioners. Solicitor General of India Ranjit Kumar and Additional Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, as well as Senior Advocate Ashok Gaur appeared for different respondents..However, it seems the matter has not been put to bed yet..A Gujjar leader was quoted as saying that the court’s decision will give rise to fresh agitations and that he would campaign to bring the 2015 Act under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution..A challenge in the Supreme Court is very likely to be seen in the coming days..Read the judgment: