Sharvan Singh Tanwar vs State of Rajasthan 

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1511/2016
Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (Division Bench)
Date of Judgment: 09 December 2016

The writ petition was decided by a common judgment along with other connected matters raising identical constitutional issues.

Impugned Legislative and Executive Action

The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of:

1. 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, 2015;
2. The State Government Notification dated 16.10.2015, issued in pursuance of the said Act; and
3. The report of the Rajasthan State Backward Classes Commission, which formed the basis for granting 5% reservation to certain communities under the newly created Special Backward Classes (SBC)

Substantive Grounds of Challenge

1. Violation of the 50% Reservation Ceiling

The petitioner contended that the impugned SBC reservation increased the total reservation in the State of Rajasthan beyond the constitutionally permissible 50% limit, in direct violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution and the binding law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and subsequent judgments.

2. Absence of Extraordinary Circumstances

It was argued that reservation exceeding 50% can be sustained only in rare and extraordinary circumstances, which must be supported by contemporaneous, quantifiable and reliable data. The State had failed to demonstrate the existence of such circumstances.

3. Invalidity of the Commission’s Report

The petitioner assailed the Commission’s report on the grounds that:

• It lacked empirical and statistical data;
• It failed to apply constitutionally recognized parameters of backwardness; and
• It did not establish any exceptional situation warranting departure from the settled reservation ceiling.

4. Colourable Exercise of Power

The petitioner submitted that the creation of a separate SBC category for communities already recognized as backward amounted to a colourable exercise of legislative power, intended solely to bypass constitutional limitations on reservation.

Issues Considered by the High Court

The Division Bench examined:

1. Whether the State could legally grant reservation beyond 50% without proving extraordinary circumstances;
2. Whether the SBC Act, 2015 satisfied constitutional requirements under Articles 14, 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4);
3. Whether the Commission’s report provided a valid constitutional foundation for the impugned reservation; and
4. Whether creation of a new backward class category could override binding constitutional principles.

Findings and Reasoning

1. Constitutional Status of the 50% Rule

The Court reiterated that the 50% reservation limit is a constitutional principle, not a flexible guideline, and deviation is permissible only in exceptional cases supported by compelling evidence.

2. Failure of the State to Discharge Constitutional Burden

The State failed to place credible, quantifiable and contemporaneous material establishing extraordinary backwardness justifying reservation beyond the ceiling.

3. Deficiencies in the Commission Report

The Court found that the Commission’s report:

• Did not adopt a constitutionally acceptable methodology;
• Lacked rigorous data analysis; and
• Could not legally justify breaching the 50% limit.

4. SBC Reservation Held Unsustainable

The Court held that creation of the SBC category and grant of 5% reservation under the impugned Act and notification was constitutionally impermissible to the extent it resulted in exceeding the 50% ceiling.

Final Decision

By judgment dated 09 December 2016, the Rajasthan High Court:

• Allowed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1511/2016 filed by Sharvan Singh Tanwar;
• Struck down the SBC reservation provisions of the 2015 Act and notification insofar as they breached the 50% reservation limit;
• Declared the impugned action unconstitutional and unenforceable; and
• Restrained the State from granting future appointments or admissions under the invalid SBC quota.

Legal Significance

The decision in Sharvan Singh Tanwar vs. State of Rajasthan stands as an important authority reaffirming:

• The binding nature of the 50% reservation ceiling;
• The requirement of quantifiable data for any departure from settled constitutional limits; and
• Judicial intolerance toward legislative or executive attempts to bypass constitutional discipline in reservation policy.
• Advocate Sharvan Singh Tanwar is having expertise in constitutional & service matter law as every service matter lawyer should have sound knowledge of constitutional principles.