INTRODUCTION
This particular case is considered to be a landmark judgment with respect to reservation for Economically Weaker Section (EWS), and the constitutional validity of the same.
EWS, are individuals who are recognized to be a section of India, with an annual family income being less than eight lakhs, but it does not include persons belonging to the SC, ST, or OBC. Therefore, EWS includes, individuals belonging to a “general” category, but with the condition of family income from all sources being less than 8 lakhs, among other criteria, to claim the benefits of the reservation.
The case looked into the amendment, challenging it as a violation of the basic structure doctrine and equality provided as a fundamental right, as the economic background/status of a person is considered to be the sole criterion.
FACTS
In the year 2019, the Parliament of India enacted the “One Hundred and Third (103rd) Constitutional Amendment Act”, wherein it incorporated clause (6) in both Article 15 and Article 16. The said amended clause established a 10% reservation for individuals belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in educational institutions and public employment.
The amendment of the constitutional provision states that, firstly, under Article 15(6), it allows the state to introduce special measures for the empowerment of individuals belonging to EWS in educational institutions. These institutions also include both aided and unaided private institutions, with the exception being the minority institutions mentioned under Article 30(1). Secondly, Article 16(6), again allows states to provide 10% of reservation as an upper limit to individuals belonging to EWS in the appointment of them in public employment.
The 10% of reservations for the Economically Weaker Section mentioned is only enabling and not mandatory in nature because the Constitutional Amendment Act doesn’t mandate it but rather lets the state government make special measures/provisions regarding it. Most importantly, this set of reservations is said to function separately from the existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs.
Following this amendment, several writ petitions were filed, which challenged the validity of this constitutional amendment because it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. One such violation is the “principles of quality” as fundamental rights under the constitution. Also, the constitutional amendment violates the decisions held in the case of Indra Sawhney v. UOI, 1992 concerning the 50% limit on reservations, which the current EWS reservation exceeds the 50% limit.
Therefore, in the current Janhit Abhiyan Case, all the writ petitions were consolidated to hear and address the issue of EWS reservation and its constitutional validity before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- As the criteria set in the EWS reservation, with the economic status being the sole eligibility criteria to fall under the EWS category, does this violate the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution?
- Whether the exclusion stated in the EWS reservation concerning SCs, STs, and OBCs violate the principle of equality and the basic structure of the Constitution?
- Whether the One-hundred Constitutional Amendment Act, allowing 10% resection for persons belonging to EWS, violate the 50% limit on the reservation as upheld in the Indra Sawhney case?
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s of the case before Supreme Court, argued about the original/main intention for establishing reservation, that was to address the discrimination people faced historically, as stated in the 1949 Constituent Assembly. Therefore, in order to bring in a equal space for persons belonging to the socially, economically and educationally backward classes. The introduced amendment, despite of this extended reservation to economically backward section of persons belonging to the general category, who they argued to be persons who were not historically a subjected of discrimination.
Therefore, they stated that court should look into the purpose and intention of bringing in reservation in the perspective of what the framers of constitution intended. Which was indeed a way to address systemic discrimination that continues to exist even today, not certainly not a place to reserve based on economic status. The said amendment and its reservation being based on economic status is not just in contradictory to the Indra Sawhney case, and also the Mandal Commission Report.
Given, the fact that the provided reservation for EWS is individual-centric and therefore, undermines the principles of the Constitution. They argued with citing reports, for instance, from NITI Aayog, which in its “multi-dimensional poverty index” indicated that backward classes face more economic challenges when in comparison to the upper class.
The petitioners finally stated that bringing in a new class of reservation doesn’t align with the factor of caste-less society. Therefore, this vertical reservation within the already existing reservation undermines the constitution’s vision and principles.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent’s that is the, Union of India and Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment defended the amendment.
They put forth the argument that the amendment is in line with the Articles 38 and 49 of the Constitution in the parr of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). These provisions mandate the state to make measures that promotes the social and economic justice, bring in welfare and reduce the existing level of inequalities.
They further, provided reasons for making the economic status based categorization for new class of reservation as EWS. This is owing to that fact, in case of poverty it results in being socially and economically behind, stating this they argued that by recognizing this factor is empowers such section of the society, as deserve the reservation benefits as well. Overall, they claimed that economic status is a legitimate an da valid ground for considering one’s backwardness.
Following, which, it was stated that amendment doesn’t violate the principles of constitution, but rather empowers the section of the society. Also, they highlighted that fact that not including SCs, STs and OBCs, was due to the fact that they were already receiving advantages under the existing reservation policies. Therein, the additional 10% certainly doesn’t have effect on their rights.
They argued, that the amendment introduced is certainly a vision for a caste-less society, as it looks out economic justice on all parts of the society. Therefore, they argued that the said amendment does not violate the rights of the reservation policy and constitutional principles.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court of India in a split verdict 3:2 upheld the constitutional validity of the One Hundred and Third Amendment Act, 2019, which introduces reservations for the EWS under Articles 15(6) and 16(6). The majority opinion, agreed that the EWS reservation forms a valid classification that does not intrude on the existing reservations for the SEBCs, SCs, and STs. Most sought economic criteria as a constitutional ground for affirmative action since poverty is an important form of social disadvantage. This, they argued was in line with the constitution that a place to share and experience equal opportunities and social justice is given to every person irrespective of his caste or social standing. The benefits of doing so would go to economically disadvantageous people
Following this on May 9, 2023, the Bench headed by CJI dismissed the review petition filed by Society for the Rights of Backward Communities and, upheld the original verdict.
