The Karnataka government has decided to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment that struck down the State’s enhanced 56% reservation, while the Karnataka State SC/ST Employees’ Association has sought a dedicated Additional Advocate-General to handle reservation-related litigation.
The association made the request in a letter to Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, urging the government to appoint a separate AAG exclusively for cases concerning Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. It also asked the government to engage expert senior counsel, including Indira Jaising, to represent Karnataka before the Supreme Court.
The Cabinet took a decision to file the Special Leave Petition later in the day, according to the report. The move follows the High Court judgment and the association’s concerns that the State’s legal submissions had not adequately established the exceptional circumstances required to justify breaching the 50% reservation ceiling.
The association referred to the 1992 Indira Sawhney judgment, which held that reservations for backward classes should ordinarily not exceed 50% of available seats or posts, except in extraordinary circumstances. It said the summary of the High Court judgment indicated that government advocates had failed to establish such circumstances before the court.
The organisation also argued that the State’s legal team had not submitted sufficient statistical information on the population of SC and ST communities in Karnataka. In its letter, it contrasted this with the precedent of 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections, whose population it said was around 3%.
Alongside the request for a dedicated AAG, the association urged the government to immediately enforce earlier orders concerning reservation for SC and ST candidates in promotional vacancies, the roster system and backlog vacancies. It said the High Court judgment should not disrupt recruitment and promotions while the legal process continues.
The letter also called for the withdrawal of two earlier orders dated February 3, 1999, and April 13, 1999, which it described as detrimental to reservations. The association said the State government had placed a proposal before the Cabinet on June 20 to withdraw those orders, but the matter had been deferred.
It asked that the issue be placed mandatorily before the upcoming Cabinet meeting and that the two orders be withdrawn. The Cabinet’s decision to pursue an appeal before the Supreme Court now places the reservation dispute within a further judicial process, while decisions on recruitment, promotions, rosters and backlog vacancies remain central to the administration of public employment in the State.
