Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) – EWS Reservation Case

Introduction

The issue of reservation in India has always been a contentious legal and political issue as it requires an ideal balance between the constitutional principles of equality and the need for adequate affirmative action to uplift disadvantaged groups.

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) is considered a landmark decision, and it also upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.

It is worth noting that under this constitutional amendment, it was implemented 10% Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government jobs and educational institutions, except for the following classes such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) to help in achieving equality.

This amendment has significantly changed the constitutional landscape by making economic criteria the sole basis for affirmative action. Its validity was challenged in the case of Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India and resulted in a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court on 7 November 2022.

The above case is important for the discussion on affirmative action in India, equality in society and social justice, etc.

Facts of the Case

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019:

• Article 15(6) was inserted in the Constitution allowing for reservation up to 10% for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in educational institutions.
• Article 16(6) was inserted in the Constitution to allow reservation of up to 10% for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in initial appointments to public services.
• Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) were excluded from the benefits of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) on the grounds that they were already availing caste-based reservation.
• Multiple petitions filed: Several petitions filed under Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India argued that the amendment violates the Basic structure of the Constitution. The amendment violates the principles of the Constitution, particularly equality and social justice.
• Composition of the Bench: A Constitution Bench of Five Judges was constituted comprising Justices U.U. Lalit (Then Chief Justice), Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi, and J.B. Pardiwala.

Issues

1. Does the 103rd Constitutional Amendment violate the basic structure by enacting reservations based only on economic criteria?
2. Does the Exclusion of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes from the quota for Economically Backward Classes (EWS) violate the equality code of the Constitution?
3. Does the 10% reservation for Economically Backward Classes (EWS) violate the 50% ceiling on reservation prescribed in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)?
4. Can only Economic Criteria be the basis for reservation in the Constitution?

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments

1. Violates Basic Structure: This amendment significantly weakens the basic structure of the Equality Code by making changes to it. Reservation was envisaged as a means of overcoming historical and social backwardness, and not merely in the context of economic backwardness.
2. Exclusion of Scheduled Castes, Tribes, and Other Backward Classes: This amendment excludes socially and educationally backward classes and discriminates against them irrespective of their economic weakness.
3. Violates 50% Limit: The Court held in the Indra Sawhney (1992) case that reservation cannot exceed 50%. The quota for EWS is determined beyond this limit of reservation.
4. Inadequate fixation of Economic Criteria: Economic deprivation falls in the realm of transient deprivation and does not create systemic disadvantage like caste-based discrimination. For these reasons, it cannot be the sole basis for affirmative action.

Respondents’ (Union of India) Arguments

1. Retention of Legislative Competence: Parliament has been vested with wide power to amend under Article 368 of the Constitution. The 103rd Amendment does not in any way abrogate the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. Promoting Economic Justice: Article 46 of the Directive Principles of State Policy directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections.
3. Prescribing Independent Quota: Quota for EWS is separate from the existing caste-based reservations. It is justified to exclude SCs, STs, and OBCs as they are already enjoying caste-based reservation benefits.
4. The Maximum Limit of 50% is not absolute: The maximum limit fixed is not a hard and fast rule. Any exceptional circumstances may justify its violation.

Judgment

In the judgment delivered on November 7, 2022, a Five-Judge Bench delivered the decision by a majority of 3:2.

The Majority (Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi, J.B. Pardiwala)

• Economic criterion valid: Economic deprivation could be a valid ground for taking affirmative action.
• Exclusion held reasonable: Since SCs, STs and OBCs already enjoy reservation benefits, excluding them from the EWS quota is constitutionally acceptable.
• 50% cap flexible: The 50% cap set by Indra Sawhney is not inflexible; Parliament can make special provisions if appropriate.
• No violation of Basic Structure: The amendment extends equality by targeting another type of deprivation.

The Dissent (Justices U.U. Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat)

• Exclusion unconstitutional: Excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS violates equality, as economically weaker individuals within these groups are also deprived.
• Violation of Basic Structure: Reservation solely on an economic basis departs from the original purpose of Articles 15 and 16.
• Violation of 50% Limit: Introducing EWS reservation without adjusting existing quotas breaches the 50% ceiling.

Ratio Decidendi

1. The only basis for reservation can be economic criteria under Articles 15(6) and 16(6).
2. Excluding groups already enjoying reservation benefits from EWS quota is valid.
3. The 50% reservation limit is a guideline, not an absolute bar, and may be exceeded in exceptional circumstances.
4. The State can identify economically weaker sections of the general category and extend affirmative action.

Legal Principles Evolved

• Affirmative action based on Economic Criteria: Economic weakness alone is a valid ground for reservation.
• Exclusion Principle: Beneficiaries of caste-based reservation may be excluded from EWS quota.
• Flexibility of Reservation Limit: The 50% cap is not absolute; it can be exceeded in special cases.
• Basic Structure Doctrine: The amendment does not violate equality; rather, it promotes it by including EWS.

Relevance of the Judgment

• Change in reservation policy: A paradigm shift from purely caste-based reservation to economic criteria.
• Social justice debate: Critics argue ignoring caste-based exclusion undermines the historical context of discrimination in India.

Conclusion

The Janhit Abhiyan judgment is both a landmark and a turning point in Indian constitutional law. The Court broadened the scope of affirmative action by recognizing economic vulnerability as a valid ground and also gave rise to complex debates on equality and social justice.

While the majority accepted the amendment as an inclusive measure, the dissent rightly pointed to the risk of undermining caste-based deprivation.

It reflects a dynamic interpretation of equality and social justice, which aligns constitutional principles with India’s emerging socio-economic landscape.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India