The Karnataka High Court has declared the 2022 law increasing SC and ST reservation quotas unconstitutional. The ruling invalidates provisions that pushed total state reservations to 56 percent, exceeding the legal 50 percent limit. This impacts ongoing government recruitment and educational admissions, as the state administration now considers legal appeals or legislative alternatives to resolve the status of these quotas.
On Monday, October 12, 2026, the Karnataka High Court invalidated the state legislation passed in 2022 that had increased reservation quotas for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, mandates that the state revert to the previous reservation framework. The court’s ruling specifically strikes down Sections 3 and 4 of the 2022 Act, which were the primary provisions enabling the hike.
The court’s judgment centered on the constitutionally binding 50 percent ceiling on total reservations, a benchmark established by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1992 Indra Sawhney versus Union of India case. The 2022 state legislation had raised the SC quota from 15 percent to 17 percent and the ST quota from 3 percent to 7 percent, resulting in an aggregate reservation level of 56 percent in Karnataka. By exceeding the 50 percent limit, the court found the Act to be in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
The ruling creates immediate procedural uncertainty for state government hiring and admissions into educational institutions. Entities, departments, or educational bodies that had begun or completed recruitment and admission processes under the 2022 guidelines may now face delays or the requirement to realign their processes with the reinstated lower quota structure. This may also impact candidates and students who have already participated in these selection cycles.
The state government is currently evaluating its next steps. Deputy Chief Minister G. Parameshwara has indicated that the administration is assessing legal options, which may include filing an appeal with the Supreme Court. Additionally, there are discussions regarding urging the Union government to provide legislative protection for the quota policy by placing it within the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, a move that would provide immunity from judicial review.
For observers of state administrative stability, this development introduces a period of flux. The legal reversal and the subsequent need for the government to manage the impact on public sector recruitment and social policy implementation could contribute to short-term administrative delays. Investors and stakeholders in sectors with significant exposure to state government policy and recruitment cycles may monitor the government’s response, potential legal appeals, and any subsequent shifts in the social or political climate within the state.