The Karnataka government on Monday told the Supreme Court, that the 1992 Indra Sawhney (Mandal Commission) judgement by a nine-judge bench, fixing 50% cap on reservation had to be reconsidered due to subsequent developments and change in social dynamics.
"Constitutional goal of social transformation cannot be achieved without taking into account the social dynamics and changing social realities and recognising the duty of the State to provide succour to its backward classes," it said.
Favouring more than 50% reservation in jobs and education, the B S Yeddyurappa government said if the court felt that there was no need to refer the judgement to larger bench, then the court should declare that it would be open for the states to exceed the quota in a given case, depending upon the necessity and quantifiable data.
"The experience of the state in providing reservations to the backward classes of citizens demonstrates that there is a necessity to provide quota in excess of 50%," a written submissions filed by advocate Shubhranshu Padhi on behalf of the state said.
The government's response was filed in view of questions framed by a five-judge bench presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan while examining the Maharashtra law on providing reservation to Maratha community.
Citing the 103rd Constitutional Amendment on 10% Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota, the state government said the Constitution itself now permitted reservation beyond 50%.
It also referred to the S V Joshi case (2012) to point out that the Supreme Court itself clearly laid down that reservation beyond 50% was permissible.
The state also maintained social realities and dynamics have also undergone tremendous changes over the past several decades, which itself was a ground to revisit the Indra Sawhney judgement.
"The Mandal Commission which quantified reservation for backward classes to 52% was relying upon older caste wise enumeration of population as far back as 1931. There has been a huge change in size of population over the last 40 years," it said.
Asserting that Articles 15 and 16 did not provide any ceiling on reservation for the SC/ST and OBCs, the Karnataka government said several states have provided reservation of more than 50%.
The state also maintained that the 102nd Amendment granting constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes did not alter the power of the state to enact a legislation determining the socially and economically backward classes and conferring the benefits of the said community under its enabling power.