... we have to keep in mind that while providing reservation to any caste or category, it should not be an excessive reservation. The respondents have not come with any material to justify amendment in sub-section 6 and 7 of the Act and consequential amendment in the Rules. They have not even furnished the details of the proportionate population between male and female in the State of Rajasthan. In view of aforesaid, the State has supported the amendment only based on arguments.
Since reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been kept limited in proportion to the population, we have to keep in mind the aforesaid legal position to adjudicate the issue raised herein. One-third of the total seats have been reserved for women as per constitutional provision itself. It is no doubt true that over and above one-third of the total seats, women can be given reservation but then it should not be out of proportion. The reservation to any category and caste should be rational and not excessive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the matter in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) put a rider that reservation should not exceed to 50% in ordinary case. The aforesaid judgment was in reference to Article 16 of the Constitution of India thus cannot be applied as such, however the ratio of the aforesaid judgment can be looked into for judging the issue as to whether there exist excessive reservation in favour of women or not. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantee right of equality among the citizens. If for example, total proportionate population ratio between male and female is 55% and 45% respectively in any State then reservation of 50% seats for women candidates in proportion to population would be more than 50%.
In the present case, respondents have not given proportionate population ratio to justify their action and to show that they have not provided excess reservation to the women. In absence of such figures, we are constrained to give a specific opinion on the aforesaid issue. However, keeping in mind provisions of Article 243 T of the Constitution as well as Articles 14 and 15, we are of the view that if proportionate population of the women is less than the male then reservation of 50% seats for women is excessive and, in that case, Article 14 of the Constitution is violated, hence, amended provisions, as challenged, deserve to be struck down being ultra vires.