This article is written by Aarushi Mittal. The article discusses the intricacies of the landmark judgement of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) and the EWS Reservation in India. Furthermore, it includes all the relevant details, facts, issues, arguments of the parties and the judgement delivered by the Bench in this case.

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction

Reservations have invariably been a subject of contention and controversy. It emerged in the wake of Indian independence, as a means to counter the injustice meted out to certain sections of society and work towards the upliftment of these backward groups. At the time of its inception, it was expected to persist for a period of ten years; however, it has continued to exist due to the prevailing inequalities present in Indian society. The Constitution’s First Amendment Act came with enabling provisions, allowing the Government to provide reservations to the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter, the Amendment Act) introduced a 10% reservation, apart from the existing reservation, for the Economically Weaker Sections. Numerous petitions were filed challenging this Amendment Act and the same was heard before the Court in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022).

Download Now

Janhit Abhiyan was a landmark judgement that reviewed and dealt with the issue of reservation of seats for economically weaker sections of society in education and employment. A five-bench constitutional bench of the Supreme Court heard this case in 2022, putting the debate on the matter to rest. The Bench consisted of the then Chief Justice of India, U.U. Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, B.M. Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala.

Background of the case

Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, form part of the doctrine of equality and deal with the concepts of “equality, social justice and social harmony”. Subclause (4) of Articles 15 and 16 is not an exception but rather allows for certain special provisions to further its objectives. With the passing of the Amendment Act on January 9, 2019, by the Parliament of India, Articles 15(6) and 16(6) were introduced into the Constitution of India. Article 15(6) allowed the State to reserve seats for the economically weaker sections in educational institutions and Article 16(6) enabled the State to make similar provisions for reservation in job appointments. The Amendment Act received presidential assent just a few days later, on January 13, 2019, and was published in the Gazette. By amending Articles 15 and 16, a 10% reservation was created in jobs and educational establishments for the Economically Weaker Sections (referred to as EWS) of society. The constitutional validity of this Amendment Act was challenged before the Court through several writ petitions.

The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) limited the total permissible reservation to 50%. It was argued by petitioners that the same was violated by the Amendment Act. Furthermore, there were questions about whether the reservation violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court commenced hearing on a batch of these petitions and ultimately upheld the constitutional validity of the EWS Reservation by a majority of 3:2.

Important principles found in the case

EWS Reservation

The Economically Weaker Section (EWS), is a section of Indian society that has an annual family income of less than eight lakh rupees. This section includes those people who do not belong to the Scheduled Caste (SCs), Scheduled Tribe (STs) or Other Backward Classes (OBCs) categories. The Parliament introduced the Amendment Act, which empowers the state government to create special reservation provisions for the EWS category with a maximum ceiling of 10%. In other words, a 10% reservation was to be made for the economically weaker sections in educational establishments and employment opportunities. This was in addition to the reservations provided to the SC, ST and OBC categories. However, such a reservation was not mandated by the Act; rather, it gave an option to the respective state governments to make provisions for the same.

Criteria for EWS Reservation

The following are the criteria, for which an individual is eligible to claim the benefits of the EWS Reservation:

  • The individual must be a ‘general’ candidate (i.e., not eligible for reservation for SC, ST, or OBC).
  • The individual’s annual ‘family’ income should be less than 8 lakh rupees. The same includes ‘all sources of income’, i.e., agriculture, salary, business, and other professions, etc., for the financial year preceding the year of application.
  • They should not own agricultural land of 5 acres and above.
  • They should not own a residential flat with an area of 1000 square feet or more. 
  • They should not own a residential plot of an area of 100 square yards or more in notified municipalities; and of 200 square yards or more in areas other than the notified municipalities.

Basic structure doctrine

In the present case, the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of the Amendment Act on the grounds, inter alia, that it violates the Constitution’s ‘basic structure’. According to the petitioners, the Equality Code (a fundamental feature of the Constitution), is breached as a result of the Amendment Act. Therefore, the entire case is to be examined based on the ‘basic structure doctrine’.

The Parliament has the power to make amendments to the Constitution. However, this is subject to the restriction that these amendments should not violate the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’’. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that Article 368 (power to make amendments to the Constitution) does not enable the Parliament to alter the ‘basic framework’ of the Constitution. This landmark judgement is referred to as the ‘basic structure’ doctrine. It states that any amendment that changed the character or form of the Constitution would be held invalid. It aims to safeguard and preserve the very essence and spirit of our Constitution.

The Constitution does not specifically mention or refer to the term ‘basic structure’. This idea that such a fundamental framework exists that cannot be altered by the Parliament, evolved over many years. The Apex Court in Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951), held that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights found in Part III of the Constitution. The same was reaffirmed in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965). However, the 11-judge Supreme Court bench in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab and Anr (1967), reversed its previous judgement. It ruled that the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution were “primordial rights necessary for the development of human personality” and could not be amended. These judgements set the stage for the introduction of the ‘basic structure doctrine’ in the Kesavananda Bharati judgement.

This historical verdict also laid down some of the features of the Constitution that constitute its ‘basic structure’. Some of these features are listed below:

  • Unity and Sovereignty of India,
  • Constitutional supremacy,
  • Separation of power among the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary,
  • Rule of law,
  • Secular and federal character,
  • Free and fair elections,
  • Equality Code.

Expansion of Doctrine of Equality

The Doctrine of Equality or Equality Code, consists of Articles 14 to 18 of the Indian Constitution that grant a citizen the ‘right to equality’. The drafters of the Constitution enacted these provisions to deal with the rampant social and economic inequalities that were prevalent in Indian society. These Articles were framed to eradicate these inequalities and establish an egalitarian society.

Essentially, the basic principle underlying this doctrine is that “equals must be treated equally while unequals need to be treated differently.” This involves reasonable classification, which involves distinguishing between those who are equal and those who are not. 

Affirmative action by reservation

To ensure equality for all of its citizens, the State takes affirmative action to remove inequalities and any discrimination prevalent in society. Reservation is one form of affirmative action by way of ‘compensatory discrimination’. This primarily works to curb discrimination and oppression and ultimately eradicate them so as to achieve real and substantive equality. 

Reservation, also known as the ‘quota system’, finds its roots in Malta before it was even introduced in India in the 19th century. At this time, the country was divided into British India and several princely states. A few of the more progressive states had advanced and modernised their societies by promoting education and industry. For instance, the Princely States of Kolhapur, Mysore and Baroda worked towards the upliftment and progress of the disadvantaged sections of society. Kolhapur’s ruler, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj, was considered to have been influenced by the ideas of egalitarian thinker Jyotirao Phule and introduced reservations in administrative posts for the disadvantaged classes in 1902.

Therefore, the doctrine of equality or the Equality Code forms the foundation for the creation of reasonable classification under which ‘affirmative action’, either legislative or executive, is authorised to be undertaken. Over the years, with every case, the Indian Courts have helped contribute to the evolution of the term ‘reservation jurisprudence’. 

Details of the case

The Janhit Abhiyan case was listed as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019 [WP (C) 55/2019] on September 8, 2022. These petitions challenged the Amendment Act, which allowed for a 10% reservation for the EWS category in education and employment.  

Supreme Court Bench 

The Bench comprised of the following:

  1. Former Chief Justice of India- Justice Uday Umesh Lalit,
  2. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,
  3. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari,
  4. Justice Bela M. Trivedi,
  5. Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Date on which judgement was delivered

The judgement was delivered on November 7, 2022, by the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court.

Parties involved

Petitioners

The petitioners in this case were Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabha, the Peoples Party of India, the SC/ST Agricultural Research and Education Employees Welfare Association and Youth for Equality.

Advocates for Petitioners

The petitioners were represented by Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayana, Meenakshi Arora, Rajeev Dhawan and MN Rao.

Respondents

The respondents in this case were the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

Advocates for Respondents

The respondents were represented by the Attorney General of India, KK Venugopal and the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta.

Related laws 

Article 14, Article 15, Article 16, Article 17, Article 21, Article 23, Article 24, Article 26, Article 29, Article 35, Article 38, Article 39, Article 45, Article 46, Article 335, Article 340, Article 366, and Article 368 of the Constitution of India.

Facts of the case

The 103rd Amendment Act created a separate reservation quota for members from economically weaker sections of society. This reservation was in addition to the already existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Article 15(6) stated that such reservations could be made in any educational establishment. This included private institutions that both received or did not receive government aid and excluded minority educational establishments. Article 16(6) provided for similar reservations in appointments (10% of which would be independent of any existing reservation).

Subsequently, several writ petitions were filed before the Court contending that the reservation was violative of the Constitution’s basic structure as it went against the principles of non-discrimination and equal rights for all citizens (i.e., it violates Article 14).

Before the enactment of the Act, 49.5% of seats were reserved in both public appointments and educational institutions. This included separate quotas for SCs (15%), STs (7.5%) and OBCs (27%). Following the hearing on the issue of referring the case to a Constitution bench, the Court on August 5, 2020, decided to refer the case to a larger bench (a five-judge bench). The matter was listed to be heard on August 30, 2022, for the first week of September. Attorney General K.K. Venugopal framed the issues for the case, which were admitted by the Bench on September 8, 2022.

Issues of the case

The Court accepted the following issues framed by the Attorney General:

  1. Whether reservation could be granted on the sole criteria of economic status?
  2. Whether SCs, STs and OBCs could be excluded from the scope of EWS Reservations?
  3. Whether the EWS Reservation could breach the ceiling (50%) for reservations that were fixed by the Court in Indra Sawney?
  4. Whether the States could provide reservations in those private educational establishments that did not receive government aid?

Arguments

Arguments of the petitioner

The following are the arguments of the counsels representing the petitioner presented before the court:

Violative of the basic structure of the Constitution

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Amendment Act in question was violative of the Constitution’s ‘basic structure’ as it looked to unjustly enrich the privileged sections of society that were neither socially and educationally backward nor inadequately represented. The petitioner’s counsel quoted various parts of the Constituent Assembly Debates to support their contention that “reservation should not be used by the forward class as a self-perpetuating mechanism depriving the disadvantaged”. From these debates, they found that the Constituent Assembly was of the clear view that the term backwards would be preceded by a class of people. Therefore, despite the poverty prevalent in the country, the focus of reservations has been, since the very beginning, on social stigma.

Against the vision of the makers of the Constitution

It was argued that the idea of reservation envisaged by the constitutional makers was specifically made for social and cultural reasons and the addition of economic criteria would devalue their vision since the principal reason for the conception of reservation was to uplift and recognise the historical injustice meted out to people belonging to backward groups. It was submitted that the Amendment attempted to provide those people with the benefits of the reservation who had never experienced social disadvantages. It was therefore against the idea of the Constitution envisaged by the makers. 

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indra Sawhney v. UOI (1992), T. Devadasan v. UOI (1964), Dayaram Khemkaran Verma v. State of Gujarat (2016), and State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) to submit the claim that the Court had declared reservations and special provisions to be an “effective affirmative action to mitigate inequalities and ensure social justice and equality of opportunity.” It was further submitted that the non-obstante clauses in Articles 15(6) and 16(6) had vetoed the precondition of being “socially and educationally backward or inadequately represented.” The Constitution lays out social and educational backwardness as a criterion, not social or educational backwardness for reservation. This goes completely against the principle of social justice for historically disadvantaged and marginalised sections. The petitioners also argued that the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney ruled that “economic criteria cannot be the sole basis to grant reservation under Article 16.” In this judgement, the Court also distinguished between the backward class [Article 16(4)] and weaker sections (Article 46). The counsel for the petitioner argued that Article 46 had no restrictions or limitations and therefore could not serve as a ground for reservation. 

Violation of Right to Equality

On the issue of exclusion of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), it was submitted before the Court that the Amendment Act violated the fundamental Right to Equality as it did not apply to all persons, i.e., it kept certain sections out of the scope of reservation. Essentially, the economically weaker sections that also belonged to the SCs, STs or OBCs could not reap the benefits of the EWS Reservation. The Amendment Act was therefore violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, as it provided for the “inclusion of forward class and exclusion of disadvantaged class from the protection and benefit of reservation.” Further, they urged that Article 46 should be read while applying the rule of ejusdem generis,  and thus, by the exclusion of SC, ST, and OBC classes, the rule was violated.

Breach of ceiling limit on Reservation

The Amendment violated the 50% reservation cap laid out by the Supreme Court. They argued that such a ceiling limit could only be breached in exceptional circumstances and there was no reason to consider the present scenario to be such an exceptional circumstance. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the intention behind ‘positive discrimination’ was to end the monopoly of certain sections and create a society that is inclusive and ensures equality of opportunity for the marginalised sections. The Amendment, however, created a ‘perpetual monopoly‘ and was against the idea and essence of reservation.

Lastly, the counsel argued that the Amendment was not based on a ‘multi-dimensional economic condition’, but rather on financial incapacity, which, by its nature, is temporary and ‘rewards poor financial behaviour’. Therefore, it is not a reliable ground for granting reservations.

Arguments of the respondent

The following are the arguments of the counsels representing the respondents submitted before the court:

Not violative of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution or the Equality Code

The Attorney General of India, submitted before the Court that the Amendment Act did not violate the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’, but rather fostered it. He argued that the exclusion of certain classes (already covered under Articles 15(4) and 16(4)), did not go against the Equality Code. Relying on the decision in Bhim Singhji, it was contended that a mere violation of Article 14 did not amount to a violation of the ‘basic structure’ unless “the violation is a shocking, unconscionable, or unscrupulous travesty of the quintessence of equal justice”.

The Solicitor General of India, further submitted that to set aside a constitutional amendment, there is a requirement for a very high judicial threshold. He found that the Constitution has recognised different zones of ‘affirmative action’, wherein reservation extends as per the needs of each section of society. It does not stop the Parliament from safeguarding a section of its people in order to further the ‘preambular vision of economic justice’. 

No breach of ceiling limit on Reservation

The counsel for the respondents argued that the EWS Reservation did not violate any prior reservation that was granted to the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The objective of the State with respect to the Amendment Act was to grant reservations to those who have been left out on the margins on the basis of their economic status. The respondents contended that the total percentage of reservations stood at 49.5% (SCs-15%,  STs-7.5% and OBCs-27%). They submitted that although the Supreme Court had established a ceiling limit of 50% in the Indra Sawhney case, the same could be breached during exceptional circumstances as it was not a ‘sacrosanct rule.’ They believed that the creation of new criteria by the State was an exceptional situation, as it was derived from Article 21 of the Constitution (right to live with dignity). Further, since the ceiling limit of 50% laid down by the Court was for the benefit of general merit candidates, it did not provide any justified reason for the candidates that already enjoyed the benefits of reservation to raise any grievance regarding the additional 10%. They contended that in any case there could be no question of a violation of basic constitutional principles.

Important judgements referred to in this case

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Others (1992)

In Indra Sawhney v. UOI (1992), a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement on reservations for backward classes in India. The Court upheld the idea of reservation as a means to secure “social justice, economic justice and political justice, as well as equality of status and equality of opportunity.” 

Brief summary of facts

In accordance with Article 340 of the Constitution, the Kaka Kalelkar Commission (the First Backwards Class Commission) was set up on January 29, 1953.  The Commission submitted its report with a number of recommendations, which were subsequently rejected by the Central Government in 1961. 

Consequent to this, Prime Minister Moraji Desai appointed the Second Backwards Class Commission on January 1, 1979. The Commission was chaired by B.P. Mandal and aimed to determine and establish criteria to classify “socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs)” and propose measures for their upliftment. The Mandal Commission submitted its recommendations in 1980, suggesting a 27% reservation of seats for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government service along with an added 10% reservation for “other economically backward sections of people not covered by an existing reservation scheme”. However, these suggestions could not be implemented, due to internal disturbances within the ruling party leading to a change in power at the Centre. It was only when the Janata Dal Party returned to power in 1989, that an office memorandum implementing the Commission’s recommendations was issued. This was met with widespread anti-reservation protests across India. Despite the subsequent fall of the Janata Dal, the violence and protests continued. As a result, the Supreme Court began hearing the petitions challenging the implementation of the Commission’s suggestions.  

Issues 

The following were the main issues identified by the Court:

  1. Scope of Article 16(4), whether it extends to both economic and social backwardness.
  2. Criteria classifying and identifying ‘backward classes of citizens’.
  3. Extent to which reservations are permissible under the Constitution.

Judgement and other findings by the Court

The bench, with a 6:3 majority, ruled that under Article 16(4), ‘backward classes of citizens’ can be classified on the basis of caste and such classification cannot be restricted to an economic basis. It differentiated between ‘Backward Classes’ and ‘Socially and Educationally Backward Classes’ and held that the ‘creamy layer’ must be excluded from these reservations. Essentially, it was ruled that these reservations existed for the upliftment of the unprivileged sections and should only apply to ‘initial appointments and not promotions’. Furthermore, the Court established the ceiling limit for the number of reservations at 50%. It underscored the fact that providing reservations to more than 50% of the applicants would lead to an ‘imbalance in the structure of society’ and that this limit could only be breached in ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

M.R. Balaji and Others v. State of Mysore (1962)

Brief summary of fact

In M.R. Balaji and Ors v. State of Mysore (1962), a challenge was made to the order passed by the State Government of Mysore that concerned the classification of “socially and educationally backward classes”. The order in question categorised all communities, excluding the Brahmin community, into socially and economically backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, wherein the reservation amounted to 75% of the total number of seats in educational institutions. Similar reservation policies were passed in the subsequent years, all of which were challenged and struck down.

The government of Mysore passed another order in 1962, supplementing these previous orders. In this order, backward classes were categorised into ‘backward classes’ and  ‘more backward classes’. Moreover, 68% of the total seats in the government medical and engineering colleges were reserved for SEBCs, SCs, and STs, leaving only 32% of seats for the merit pool. The order was challenged before the Supreme Court in the present case. 

Issues 

The following were the main issues identified by the Court:

  1. Whether 68% reservation of seats was ‘reasonable‘ and in accordance with Article 15(4)?
  2. If the government was justified in classifying backward classes into ‘backward classes’ and  ‘more backward classes’.

Judgement and other findings by the Court

The Supreme Court found that there were no extraordinary circumstances that justified the 68% reservation and held it to be invalid. The Bench held back from establishing a strict, fixed upper limit on the reservation of seats but underscored the importance of  the reservation percentage being reasonable. The Court held that although it is of utmost significance to uplift the weaker sections, the same should be done while balancing and taking into account the interests of every Indian citizen and that ”it is extremely unreasonable to assume that in enacting Article 15(4), Parliament intended to provide that where the advancement of the backward classes or Scheduled Castes and Tribes were concerned, the fundamental rights of the citizens constituting the rest of the society were to be completely and absolutely ignored. Considerations of national interest and interests of the community and society as a whole have already to be kept in mind.” Furthermore, it found the classification between ‘backward classes’ and  ‘more backward classes’, on the sole basis of their caste, to be in violation of the principles of the Constitution.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

The bench, after hearing all the parties, reserved its judgement for September 27, 2022. The five-judge bench of the Court unanimously upheld the validity of the Amendment Act and dismissed the petitions challenging the legality of the same. They ruled that the Amendment Act did not violate any provision of the Constitution, much less the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. Justices Pardiwala, Maheshwari and Trivedi, formed the majority opinion in their respective concurring judgements, while Justice R. Bhat wrote the dissenting (minority) judgement on behalf of himself and the then CJI.

Majority judgement

As per Justices Maheshwari, B.M. Trivedi, and Pardiwala, the petitions challenging the Act were liable to be dismissed. They found that the Act could not be considered to violate any fundamental principles of the Constitution and did not violate the basic structure doctrine.

Justice Bela Trivedi in her concurring judgement states that ‘equality of opportunity would also mean fair opportunity not only to one section or the other but to all sections by removing the handicaps if a particular section of the society suffers from the same.‘ She emphasised the ‘Statements of Arguments and Justifications for the Constitution’s (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Bill’ and underscored the fact that a significant section of the economically weaker sections were unable to receive a quality education, simply due to financial constraints. They neither had the means nor resources to finance their education nor were they eligible to receive the benefits of reservations. Consequently, the government passed the presently disputed Amendment Act. She held that the laws introduced by the legislature were to combat the problems of its people, which were made apparent with experience. Therefore, any such amendment could not be declared arbitrary or discriminatory if the ‘state of facts’ were reasonably formulated to justify it. This Act was essentially a form of affirmative action taken by the Parliament for the progress of the economically disadvantaged sections. She also found the economic criterion to be intrinsically related to the concept of ‘distributive justice’ proposed in the Preamble and Articles 38 and 46. 

Justice Maheshwari underscored the importance of reservation as an ‘instrument of affirmative action’ by the State. He established that it was not just a tool for the inclusion of socially disadvantaged and backward classes but also for any other section or class that was disadvantaged. By this rationale, he found that reservation built solely upon economic status was not constitutionally impermissible. Further, the barring of SCs, Sts and OBCs from benefiting under the economic criteria did not violate the right to equality and equal treatment. He found that the ceiling limit of 50% established by the Court in prior judgements was not inflexible and therefore the breach of the same was not violative of any provisions of the Constitution.

Justice Pardiwala observed that in India, with a population of over 1.4 billion, economic backwardness was not limited to those who were protected by Articles 15(4) and 16(4). In fact, only a slight percentage of the Indian population was above the poverty line. To deny the economically disadvantaged the possibilities of education and employment is to refuse those who are competent and qualified what they justly and rightfully deserve. He highlighted how the persistent development and spread of education had led to the considerable closing of the gap between different sections of society. With the increasing numbers of members belonging to disadvantaged classes attaining quality education and employment, they must be excluded from the backward category quotas so that extra focus can be given to others. Justice J.B. Pardiwala underscored the importance of formulating a method to identify and distinguish between different members of backward classes and verify whether the standards adopted for the classification of the disadvantaged sections remain relevant in the present day. B.R. Ambedkar envisioned social equality within ten years of the implementation of the reservation system. However, it has continued to exist for over seven decades.

Therefore, the Apex Court held ‘Economic Disabilities or Economic Backwardness Criterion’ to be a valid criterion for reservation. They observed that this reservation was intended to deal with the hardships arising from economic disadvantages and was sanctioned by the Constitution of India. They found that the equality clause present in the Constitution did not restrict itself to formal equality but actually embodied the concept of real and ‘substantive equality’. Furthermore, the goal of our Preamble is to secure justice for all its citizens, including social justice, economic justice and political justice.

Minority opinion

Justice Bhat and the Chief Justice of India, U.U. Lalit, were of a different view and declared the Act to be unconstitutional. With respect to the inclusion of Article 15(6), Justice Bhat held that it was violative of the Constitution since it excluded the poorest sections of society who were both socially and economically disadvantaged. Therefore, it was discriminatory and against the fundamental right to equality.

Further, in regard to Article 16(6), he ruled that it was unconstitutional for two reasons. First, providing the EWS with reservations under Article 16 excluded the already socially and educationally disadvantaged classes. Second, since Article 16 deals with the lack of representation in specific classes or communities, providing reservation on the sole basis of economic status was violative of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. 

Analysis

As mentioned earlier in this Article, reservations were introduced in India to uplift the socially weaker sections of society. Despite being in existence since the Constitution came into force, post-independence, it continues to be a topic sparking heated debates and discussions among people. Many argue that the uplifting of the SCs, STs, and OBCs has proven to be unjust for the other members of society who, although not from a disadvantaged caste, might be economically weak. Often, those benefiting from these reservations are those who are already well-off, with resources and access to quality education

Most reservation policies provide access to education and government jobs, but questions have been raised as to whether the same compromises the quality of education and workforce in the long run. Some contend that reservation only deepens the divide among the citizens, creating resentment and hindering development. Furthermore, it has become a long-standing practice for reservation policies to be wrongfully used by political parties for electoral gains. Many state governments introduce policies that flout the reservation ceiling limit set by the Court in Indra Sawhney for political gain. However, it is clear that there continues to be a need for such policies to counter the widespread disparity and poverty prevalent among the citizens of India. Despite its misuse, there exists a requirement for strong measures to disburse social and economic benefits to all the marginalised groups and communities in our country.

Outcome and impact of the case

The Society for the Rights of Backward Communities filed a review petition on December 6, 2022, challenging the decision to allow EWS Reservations. However, a five-judge bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud dismissed the petition on May 9, 2023. They found no grounds to review the decision taken by the earlier Bench and refused to hear on the matter further. In the order passed, the Bench recorded, “Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed”.

The judgement upholding the 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections has widened the scope for the interpretation of the Constitution. It ensures that the economically weaker classes are provided with equal opportunities in education and employment and marks significant progress towards addressing socio-economic disparities amongst individuals. The Supreme Court provided for a flexible analysis by ruling that the additional 10% neither damages the basic structure of the Constitution nor violates any provision or past judgements. Essentially, it does not dilute the already existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). By breaking the established reservation structure, which had its basis in class rather than economic criteria, the Amendment Act sought to provide an equal opportunity to those who were unable to compete with the general population due to financial constraints. Some see this ruling as a move towards achieving the egalitarian society envisioned by the makers of our Constitution. They consider it an impetus, seeking to create a “level playing field”, where individuals from socially and economically weaker backgrounds are provided equal access to quality education and employment. However, others raise concerns and fears about reservations becoming a perpetual system of allocating benefits and opportunities solely based on criteria rather than merit. 

Recommendation

Reservations affect every single citizen of our country, regardless of caste or status. Since the time of Independence, such policies and provisions have existed that aim to uplift and help the disadvantaged and backward classes of society. Keeping in line with this idea, the Amendment Act was introduced by the Parliament to provide reservation benefits to the ‘general category of economically weaker sections’. 

However, the reservation provisions adopted at that time were formulated keeping in view the scenario of Indian society at the time. These policies and provisions must be revisited, taking into account the changing socio-economic conditions of the people. These policies have occasionally resulted in unjust enrichment and are even used for political advantages and electoral gains. The Supreme Court, in this landmark judgement, repeatedly highlighted the need for revisiting the existing system of reservation so as to ultimately achieve the egalitarian society envisioned by the makers of our Constitution.

Conclusion

The equal protection framework provided by the Constitution operates largely through affirmative action in the manner of reservation for different sections of Indian society. Reservation in India has been and continues to remain one of the most contentious issues due to the deprivation and discrimination meted out to a certain section of our society. It finds its roots in India’s ‘age-old caste system’. The makers of the Constitution intended to ensure social equality and justice for the oppressed and deprived classes. As a result, numerous provisions were added to the Constitution that provided a reservation of seats to ensure fair representation for these classes. 

The 103rd Amendment Act deviated from the status quo by awarding benefits to certain classes of people on the sole basis of their economic status. Ultimately, the Amendment Act was upheld by a constitutional bench of the Apex Court and although heavily debated, the Court’s decision intended to fulfil the goals set out in the preamble of the Constitution- to render economic and social justice to all. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is a reservation?

Reservation involves ‘facilitating access’ to seats in legislatures, government jobs or educational institutions for certain sections of society. It was introduced to uplift the backward and disadvantaged sections of our society.  

What is the need for reservation?

Reservation provides the historically oppressed and backward classes with resources and opportunities that are not available and accessible to them. It aims to correct the historical injustices faced by certain sections of people and ensure equality on the basis of merit. It provides equal representation and a platform for all citizens of India, irrespective of their social and economic status.

How to apply for EWS Reservations?

To apply for an EWS Reservation, the individual must obtain an EWS certificate (‘Income and Asset Certificate’) from the competent government authority. They must submit additional documents, such as passport-size photographs, a PAN card, an Aadhar card, and bank statements, in addition to the Income and Assets Certificate. The aforementioned documents will be verified and the designated government officer will issue the certificate. The certificate is valid for a year and needs to be renewed periodically.

What are the Constitutional provisions governing reservation in India?

The following are the various provisions of the Indian Constitution pertaining to reservation:

  1. Part XVI of the Constitution deals with the reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Central and State Legislatures.
  2. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) allow different States and the Central government to reserve seats for SCs and STs in government services
  3. Article 243D provides for the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Panchayat.
  4. Article 243T provides for the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Municipality.
  5. Article 330 discusses the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the House of People (Lok Sabha).
  6. Article 332 discusses the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Legislative Assemblies of the State.
  7. Article 335 maintains that the claims of SCs and STs shall be taken into consideration in making appointments to different services or posts that are connected with the affairs of the Union or of a particular State.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here