CASE BREIF OF JANHIT ABHIYAN VS UNION OF INDIA

JANHIT ABHIYAN VS UNION OF INDIA

(The EWS Reservation)

BY- Swyam Srivastava, 3^RD SEMESTER

BBS INSTITUTE OF LAW , PROF. RAJENDRA SINGH (RAJJU BHAIYA) UNIVERSITY, PRAYAGRAJ.

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION …3

2. CASE BRIEF …4

3. KEY ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT …4

4. CONTENSION OF PARTIES

• PETITIONERS’ SANTANCE …5

• RESPONDANTS’ SANTANCE …5

5. RATIONALE

• THE MAJORITY VIEW …6

• THE MINOROTY VIEW …6

6. JUDGEMENT …7

7. DEFECTS OF LAW / CRITISIM …7

8. INFERENCE …8

INTRODUCTION

The case Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India 2022 is a landmark judgement of Supreme Court on November 7, 2022, concerning about the validity of the 103^rd constitutional amendment act, 2019. This amendment act introduces the 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in the education and the public employment. In India first time the reservation is sole basis in the economically.

The Judgement has bench of five-judges constitutional bench. The court by the 3:2 majority upheld the amendment valid, while two judges’ dissent.

Fundamental concern issue is the scope of reservation, meaning of substantive equality, is

exceeding of 50% limit on reservation by Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India 1992 violated and hitting the basic structure.

Case Brief

Case Title	Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India
Citation	Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019, decided on 7 November 2022
Court	Supreme Court
Bench	CJI U.U. Lalit, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Parties	Petitioner: Janhit Abhiyan (NGO) + other petitioners challenging the amendmentRespondent: Union of India
Issue	Does the 103rd Amendment violate the basic structure by allowing economic-based reservations?Is the exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs from EWS quota unconstitutional?Does the amendment breach the 50% ceiling limit from IndraSawhney (1992)?
Judgement	By 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. The 10% EWS reservation wasdeclared constitutional.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• Introduced the new class by the doctrine of classification under the Article 14.

(Equality of law and equality before the law)

• The 103^rd constitutional amendment act, 2019, implemented on January 14, 2019 insert the clause 6 in the Article 15 and 16 of the constitution.
• In Article 15 in clause 6 inserted the 10% reservation for EWS at educational institute despite of it private or government. (Except minority institutions)
• In Article 16 in clause 6 inserted that 10% reservation of the employment for the EWS.
• Exclude the previous reservation classes – ST/SC/OBC from the EWS class.
• Exceeding the limit of the 50% of reservation, which hits the equality code and basic structure.

KEY ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

• Does reservation based purely on economic criteria violate the Basic Structure?
• Is special provision for EWS in private unaided institutions permissible under the Basic Structure?
• Does excluding existing reserved categories from EWS reservation breach the Basic Structure?
• Is the 50% reservation ceiling an inviolable part of the Basic Structure, and does the 103rd Amendment violate it?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

• PETITIONERS’ STANCE
  • Contended that reservation should address historical social and educational backwardness, not merely economic status, which violates the equality code.
  • Argued that excluding the poorest within SC/ST/OBC communities from EWS benefits, while including economically weak “forward” classes,

constitutes hostile discrimination.

• Emphasized that the 10% EWS quota, being “in addition to” existing

reservations, breaches the long-standing 50% limit established in Indra Sawhney.

• Asserted that the amendment subverts the purpose of reservation by equating historically privileged groups (if economically weak) with historically

oppressed communities.

• RESPONDANTS’ STANCE
  • Asserted that the amendment aligns with the Preamble’s goal of “economic justice” and Article 46, promoting the welfare of “weaker sections” beyond traditional definitions.
  • Maintained that excluding existing reserved categories was a reasonable

classification to prevent “double-dipping” and ensure the new quota benefited a distinct, new class.

• Parliament has broad amending power under Article 368 to adapt to social realities.
• Argued that the 50% rule from Indra Sawhney was not an inflexible part of the Basic Structure and could be exceeded in “extraordinary situations,” which the EWS reservation represented.
• Highlighted Parliament’s broad power to amend the Constitution, arguing that the amendment did not alter the “identity” of the Constitution.

RATIONALE (REASONING OF THE COURT)

• The Majority View (Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi, J.B Pardiwala)
  • Economic criteria permissible recognized EWS as a new, distinct class for distributive justice, not limited by traditional backwardness. It was seen as a “calibrated affirmative action.”
  • Held that excluding SC/ST/OBC was not discriminatory, but consistent with the principle of “vertical reservations,” preventing unfair advantages.
  • Ruled that the 50% limit was a “rule of caution” for specific backward classes, not an inflexible constitutional mandate applicable to all special provisions.
  • Concluded that the amendment strengthens the Basic Structure by promoting economic justice and an egalitarian society, rather than violating it.
• The Minority View (CJI U.U Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat)
  • Argued that reservation’s essence lies in addressing historical social exclusion, not merely individual economic poverty. Sole economic criteria were seen as “antithetical to substantive equality.”
  • Criticized the exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS quota as “insidious

discrimination,” using caste as a proxy for exclusion and leaving out the poorest from these communities.

• Contended that the amendment strikes at the heart of the equality code by creating two classes of poor citizens, favoring economically weaker “forward” classes over “backward” ones.

JUDGEMENT (November 7 , 2022)

• The Supreme Court held the amendment is valid by 3:2 majority of validation of 103^rd amendment act, 2019.
• The judgment affirmed that a reservation can be based solely on economic criteria, creating a new pathway for affirmative action.
• The Court found the exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from the EWS quota to be a reasonable classification, preserving the distinct nature of existing reservations.
• The ruling clarified that the 50% reservation ceiling is not an inviolable part of the Basic Structure for all types of reservations, particularly for the new EWS category.
• While the majority saw the amendment as strengthening economic justice, the minority raised concerns about its impact on the fundamental equality code,

highlighting a continuing debate on the scope of affirmative action.

DEFECTS OF LAW / CRITICISM

• Exclusion of Sc/St/OBC
  • Preventing SCs, STs, and OBCs from accessing EWS benefits creates a new form of inequality.
• Breaching celling of 50%

• They fear it could lead to endless expansion of quotas, leaving little space for merit-based opportunities.
• Exceeding the 50% celling of reservation lead to the social equality on very vast manner between the General Class and Reserved class.
• Implementation Challenges:

• Without strong verification mechanisms, the scheme risks being misused by relatively better-off groups, leaving the neediest behind.
• Determining who truly qualifies as “economically weaker” is difficult in practice.

INFERENCE

• The Janhit Abhiyan case stands as a milestone in constitutional law, because it

widened the idea of affirmative action to cover economic disadvantage, not just caste or community.

• The judgment sparked a fresh debate, should reservation continue to focus on caste- based backwardness, or is it time to also recognize economic poverty as a ground?
• The decision raises concerns about whether crossing the 50% ceiling will upset the balance between merit and social justice that the Court tried to preserve in Indra Sawhney.
• The judgment highlights that equality in India is not a fixed idea; it evolves with time, social realities, and the needs of justice.