Date of the case: 7th November 2022
Citation: Writ petition (civil) No.55 of 2019
Petitioner: Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabha, the People Party of India, SC/ST Agricultural Research and Education Employees Welfare Association, and Youth for Equality.
Respondent: The Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
BENCH/JUDGES: U.U. LALIT CJI, DINESH MAHESHWARI J, S.R. BHATT J,
B.M. TRIVEDI J, JB PARDIWALA J.
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, ARTICLE 368 of the Indian Constitution.
Introduction
Reservations are special seats and opportunities given to a particular group of people who somehow faced unfair treatment in the past. These groups could be based on caste, gender, disability, etc. The idea of introducing reservation is to give opportunities to those groups of people and to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to do things like jobs, education, and government positions.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India is a landmark case that deals with the reservation seats in employment opportunities and education institutions provided to the society’s EWS (economically weaker section). The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act,2019 introduced a 10% reservation apart from the existing reservation, for the Economically Weaker Section. The amendment introduced articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the constitution, reserving the economically weaker section. The case was decided 3–2 by a five-judge constitutional bench representing the Supreme Court. The case primarily concerned constitutionality and fundamental structural theory
FACTS
On January 9th, 2019, The Indian Parliament passed the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act,2019 allowing them to provide reservation seats in educational institutions and public employment on economic consideration. By amending 15(6) and 16(6) the constitution changed articles 15 and 16. With such an amendment, the state was empowered to impose particular restrictions on reservations for members of the economically weaker class with a maximum of 10 percent. The exception was minority institutions free from the obligations of Article 30(1) of the Indian constitution.
The 10% reservation criteria were added in such a way that there will be no changes in the pattern of existing seats in the government employment or educational institutions but there will be a 10% increase in existing seats. For Example, if an institution has only 100 seats in their institution then now it will have 110 seats, and those seats were added for the Economically Weaker Section
Criteria for this reservation
- The person’s annual income must be less than 8 lakh.
- The person should have no less than 5 acres of farmland.
- Person with a house less than 1000 square feet in town/city.
- The individual must be in the ‘General’ category.
ISSUES RAISED
The Court accepted the following issues framed by the Attorney General:
- Can reservation be granted on the sole criteria of economic status?
- Whether SCs, STs, and OBCs be excluded from the scope of EWS Reservations?
- Whether the EWS Reservation could breach the ceiling (50%) for reservations that were fixed by the Court in Indra Sawney?
- Do the States provide reservations in those private educational establishments that did not receive government aid?
CONTENTIONS:
Arguments from the petitioner’s side (Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabha, the People Party of India, SC/ST Agricultural Research and Education Employees Welfare Association, and Youth for Equality).
- Petitioner argued on the violation of the basic structure of the constitution as it looks like giving privilege to the societies who do not face any social or educational discrimination but are economically weak.
- The petitioner also said that the historically backward people (SC, ST, OBC) are also facing economic problems but are not given the privilege of having 10% reservation on the economic ground.
- Petitioner also mentioned that the Indira Sawhney case established that the economic factor could not only be the basis for granting reservation
- In the same judgment, it was also held that the 50% reservation limit should only change in certain circumstances, and as there is no extraordinary situation no change should be held on the 50% reservation limit.
- The petitioner also argued that the vision of the constitution maker was to provide reservation to the society for social and cultural reasons but providing reservation on the grounds of economics would look like demeaning the idea of the constitution maker.
- Petitioner also mentioned that providing 10% reservation to the economically weaker section of the general category will make sub-categories in one class.
Arguments from the respondent’s side (The Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment).
- The Respondent mentioned that a 10% reservation for EWS was a necessary step to ensure social and Economic justice in India.
- Reservation does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution as it was made to provide equal opportunity to every category of people.
- Respondent also stated that the 10% reservation is not biased with the SC/ST/OBC community because they are already enjoying 50% reservation and from which gain economic and social help from the government, 10% reservation is provided to the
economically weaker section of the general category so that they can also get the opportunity to be employed.
They also held that the Supreme Court itself mentioned that poverty is the main problem of social inequality in India in cases ‘M.R. Balaji V State of Mysore and R. Chitralekha V. State of Mysore11 and K.C Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka’.
Rationale:
On 7th November 2022, the Supreme Court of India’s five-judge bench upheld the validity of the 103rd Amendment Act 2019 which provides EWS reservation to the Economically weaker section by a 3:2 majority and declared it constitutionally valid.
In this Justice Dinesh Maheshwari stated that a “10% Reservation for the Economically weaker section in addition to the existing reservation for SC/ST/OBC does not result in any violation of any essential feature of the constitution and does not cause any single damage to the basic feature of the constitution and no breach to the 50% reservation for the SC/ST/OBC community. This is because 50% Reservation is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservation envisioned by Articles 15 (4), 15(6), and 16(4) of the constitution of India.”
In this Justice Bela M Trivedi states her statement by highlighting that recognizing economically disadvantaged individuals as a distinct class does not disrupt the constitutional framework. Justice Pardiwala supported the idea that economic arguments can be valid grounds for reservation and making the principle of equality. However, Justice Bhatt dissented from the arguments on considering the ‘economic factor’ as a ground for providing reservation for Article 15 reservation regarding public employment. Later he referred to the Indira Sawhney case in which the reservation was provided on educational and social grounds and there was no reservation provided based on economic grounds.
In this judgment, this can be seen that there are many different perspectives of each judge within the Supreme Court regarding the addition of economic ground in the reservation. The majority was in support of adding EWS reservation in reservation policies and two were dissented by this addition.
Defects of the Law
The exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from the 10% EWS (economically weaker section) quota by introducing the 103rd Amendment Act 2019 is violating the principle of equality in our nation. This shows discrimination regarding the historically backward people who were provided reservation only on social and educational grounds and now the new ground is added which is 10% reservation on the grounds of economically weaker sections which will not include SC/ST/OBC which shows discrimination and inequality.
Adding the economic ground for providing the reservation violates Article 15,16 which guarantees equal opportunities of work in the employment. The dissented Judges also contented that aim to provide representation specifically to historically disadvantaged and weaker sections of society. Therefore by providing the reservation on the grounds of economy, there will be a violation of constitutional ethics which seeks equal representation of each person in the country so that no one faces social distances based on social backwardness and historical injustice.
INFERENCE
The reservation policies are a kind of evergreen policies that aim to promote social, economic, and educational equality among the country’s citizens and uplift the historical marginalization of these communities. we know that reservation and affirmative action are the root systems to develop equality and give opportunity to every person. Landmark cases like Indira Sawhney and Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India have played a vital role in providing a regulatory framework for the reservation to stop the unfair treatment given to these communities.
EWS policy is made to address inequality, discrimination, and lack of social welfare and to give opportunities so that economically weak families will also have some opportunities they do what they want, through this article we came to know how many families and individuals face many problems due to economic issues included lack of basic needs given, less education, less healthcare and limited financial situation.
The 10% EWS (103rd Amendment Act),2019 is a reservation provided to the citizens of the general category not to SC/ST/OBC to enjoy their educational and economic freedom. Due to this reservation, we can see our society is a classless society because now the benefits are provided to each class so that there will be no discrimination and due to their financial Inequality they have to face inequality and discrimination in society which is now removed due to the 10% reservation.
Reference
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SCC 1540
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
Janhit Abhiyan V/S UOI: The Economically Weaker Section Reservation Saga