Facts:
Parliament passed the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, in January of the following year. The Indian Constitution was amended to include Articles 15(6) and 16(6), allowing the State the authority to set aside up to 10% of government employment and educational seats for the “economically weaker sections” (EWS) of society. Crucially, the amendment stated that only persons who do not belong to the non-creamy layer of Other Backward Classes (OBC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Scheduled Castes (SC) would be eligible for these EWS reservations. Practically speaking, this meant that the new EWS quota, which primarily favors the poorer members of forward (upper) castes, would not apply to SC, ST, and OBC members, who already have their own reservations.
Before the change, approximately 49.5% of seats in India were set aside for SC (15%), ST (7.5%), and OBC (27%). According to the Supreme Court’s earlier, landmark Indra Sawhney ruling (1992), overall reservations should never surpass roughly 50%. This ceiling was effectively lifted to 59.5% by the 103rd Amendment, which permitted an additional 10% quota for EWS. Several states quickly implemented the 10% EWS quota in public jobs and educational institutions once the law went into force (with presidential assent on January 12, 2019).
The changes were quickly challenged in court. A collection of over twenty writ petitions was submitted to the Supreme Court, led by groups including Youth for Equality and the Janhit Abhiyan. The goal of the petitioners was to declare the Amendment invalid. They claimed that it contravened the fundamental principles of equality, particularly Articles 14, 15, and 16, as well as the basic structure of the Constitution. In August 2020, the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India was referred to a Constitution Bench comprising five judges. On November 7, 2022, the entire bench, including Chief Justice U. U. Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, among others, heard the matter and rendered a decision. The Court affirmed the 103rd Amendment’s constitutionality in a 3:2 vote.
Issues Raised:
The Supreme Court highlighted several significant constitutional issues raised in the petitions. These include:
1. Economic factor for making a reservation: Is it legal for the state to make reservations based solely on a person’s economic standing? In the past, social and educational backwardness, rather than just poverty, was used as justification for Indian reservations. The petitioners questioned whether quotas that are solely based on economic circumstances contradict the “basic structure” and the equality provision of the Constitution (Articles 14, 15, 16).
2. SC/ST/OBC Exclusion: Can the constitutionally protected classes—SC, ST, and OBC—be left out of the new EWS reservations? To put it a different way, can limiting benefits to poor people who are not backward represent discrimination based on caste? The problem was whether this kind of exclusion was beyond the basic structure concept and the equality guarantees.
3. 50% reservation restriction: Does going over the traditional 50% reservation restriction violate the “equal opportunity” principle? The Court had regarded 50% as a general quota cap in the Indra Sawhney and similar cases. The changes raised reservations to 59.5% total. The question was whether the Constitution’s fundamental equality framework was broken by this violation of the 50% ceiling.
Arguments from both Sides
Petitioner’s arguments: The petitioners argued that the original intent of the reservation was to address systemic and historical caste-based social injustices rather than to reduce poverty. They maintained that while caste and birth-based disadvantages are permanent and recognized by the constitution, economic criteria are fundamentally arbitrary and temporary, and a family’s income is subject to change. They argued that poverty cannot support a set quota because it is a relative and changing concept. Additionally, the petitioners noted that the amendment essentially gives new quota benefits only to members of the forward caste by completely excluding SC, ST, and OBC from the EWS category. They believed that this violated the right to equality and was an example of caste-based exclusion. Lastly, they claimed that the 50% reservation restriction, which has been repeated in previous cases and it is an essential part of the Constitution and cannot be easily violated. They argued that it is unconstitutional to permit 59.5% of reservations without a strong justification.
Respondent’s arguments: This amendment was defended by the government on a number of grounds. First, it stated that the Preamble and Directive Principles, for instance, express the Constitution’s commitment to economic justice. Poverty is one root cause of backwardness, so addressing economic disadvantage is consistent with the equality principles. Using poverty or income as a criterion for special provisions is not prohibited by law. In actuality, economic status-based reservations can address “intersecting disadvantages” that caste quotas might overlook. Second, the government explained that their own reservations already cover SC, ST, and OBC. The purpose of the EWS quota was to help those who are disadvantaged but do not fall into those categories. In that regard, their exclusion was not intended to cause harm to the protected groups, but rather as a means of avoiding double reservations. Third, the government pointed out that previous rulings had viewed the 50% ceiling as a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule. Furthermore, increasing the quota limit was a legitimate use of Parliament’s amending authority because it was part of the Constitution itself. The government maintained that the 10% extension was constitutionally allowed and that extending reservations to the poor and needy did not undermine equality.
Rationale:
The Court’s rulings were divided into two groups: the dissent (written by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, for himself and CJI Lalit) and the three-judge majority (written by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, with Justices Bela Trivedi and J. B. Pardiwala joining him).
1. Majority opinion that supported the Amendment: The majority centered its argument on the objectives of the Constitution and the modifications made to the text. It pointed out that advancing “social, economic, and political justice” and the welfare of all citizens is specifically mentioned in the Preamble and Article 46 of the Constitution. According to Justice Maheshwari, previous Supreme Court rulings have given economic justice the same weight as social justice. According to the Court, poverty is a “point of regression” that keeps people at a disadvantage. Therefore, establishing a reservation for the EWS is a valid way to promote socioeconomic justice and address economic deprivation. The majority ruled that the amendment does not prohibit the use of “economic criteria” as a basis for reservations; in fact, Parliament added them specifically.
The majority found no constitutional violations regarding the exclusion of SC, ST, and OBC. The new EWS quota was designed for those not covered by the previous provisions, as those classes already enjoy reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). Stated differently, the EWS reservation does not deprive the protected groups in any way; rather, it merely widens affirmative action to include a larger group of economically disadvantaged individuals. Therefore, the amendment established a new, distinct category but did not abolish caste quotas. Lastly, the majority adopted a flexible position regarding the 50% ceiling. It noted that Parliament obviously decided to go beyond the previous 50% guideline because the Constitution was changed to include these EWS clauses. None of the previous decisions were regarded as invincible restrictions on the ability to amend. The Court inferred in the ruling that the 10% increase is an “enabling” provision that the State “may” employ at its discretion rather than one that “destroys” equality. According to Justice Maheshwari’s opinion, reservation percentages do not always have to equal 50%. As a result, the majority affirmed the amendment in its entirety, concluding that it is now acceptable to use economic status as a basis, even on its own.
2. Dissenting View: Regarding the exclusion part, Justices Lalit and Bhat dissented. They did not entirely oppose the use of an economic criterion, but they did agree that poverty is a significant issue that needs to be addressed. But according to Justice Bhat, it was fatal for the scheme to refuse SC, ST, and OBC benefits under EWS. This carve-out, in his opinion, is a caste-based exclusion that essentially establishes a reverse quota for forward castes. According to him, the equality code of the Constitution prohibits denying opportunities to historically underprivileged groups in favor of the wealthy. According to Justice Bhat, reservations were intended to help the underprivileged classes under the previous Articles 15(4) and 16(4); however, the wording of the Amendment was framed differently and actually favored others.
Regarding the economic criterion itself, Justice Bhat acknowledged that poverty might call for remedial measures, but he pointed out that the original language of the equality provisions prohibited reservation for only economic reasons. He referenced past rulings that determined the eligible classes for reservations based on social backwardness rather than wealth. justice Bhat cautioned that even though the Amendment modified the text, it still needed to be interpreted in a way that was consistent with its constitutional identity. Therefore, he voiced concern that the majority’s suggestion that poverty is an unaltered category deviates from established discrimination law.
The dissent declined to support going over the 50% cap, but it did not explicitly reject it. In keeping with Ambedkar’s caution that unrestricted quotas can “eat up” equality, Justice Bhat even favored leaving open the question of the 50% limit. In summary, the dissent came to the conclusion that the backward classes’ exclusion from the EWS quota violates the fundamental principles of equality, and as a result, that portion of the Amendment is unconstitutional. Due to the divergent views, the Court ultimately decided that the Amendment survives in its entirety (3:2), which essentially means that while the majority’s position won out, there are significant concerns raised by the dissent.
Defects of the Law:
- Critics claim that the decision weakens the fundamental goal of reservations. The Court has transformed the reservation from a social justice tool to an anti-poverty welfare program by permitting a quota based on wealth. this viewpoint is deviating from substantive equality, which aims to address disadvantages based on group membership. Researchers note, for instance, that approving economic reservations has essentially produced a “upper-caste quota.” The Court has arguably shifted the goal of affirmative action from uplifting those in poverty to merely aiding the needy of any community by excluding historically disadvantaged communities (SC, ST, and OBC) from the new quota. Critics fear that this calls into question the belief of community equality and draws attention to temporary disparities in income.
- The SC/ST/OBC carve-out in the amendment has drawn harsh criticism. Because it ensures that the new quota only goes to those who are not in the protected classes, even if those protected groups include disadvantaged people, and dissenters claim that this exclusion is essentially caste-based discrimination. Some commentators believed that the majority’s acceptance of the exclusion goes against equality, and the petitioners had cautioned that this creates a de facto preference for upper castes. The Court essentially upheld the rule that “even if a poor Brahmin can get an EWS seat, a poor Dalit or Adivasi cannot.” Critics contend that by favoring one caste group over another based on where they live in poverty, this goes against the spirit of Articles 15 and 16.
- Concerns have been raised by the ruling’s treatment of the reservation limitation. Along with ideas like “creamy layer” and true backwardness as needs, Indra Sawhney (1992) and M. Nagaraj (2006) had stressed a 50% limit. The majority essentially overcame that limit without providing a convincing argument by maintaining the 10% addition (for a total of 59.5%). The Supreme Court itself questioned whether the 50% ceiling was a part of the fundamental framework, according to critics. The 50% rule was deemed constitutionally significant by the Court in Nagaraj. However, Janhit Abhiyan maintained that the limit could be pushed further by a new protected class. This, according to critics, contradicts the previous cases. They point out that the Court did not ask for a strong justification for violating 50%. Because one can now add categories and quotas on top of the previous limit, the so-called “exceptional” nature of reservations may be compromised. To put it briefly, many believe that a crucial protection of the equality code has been undermined by the ruling.
- According to some legal experts, the majority’s logic runs the risk of breaking the fundamental framework of the Constitution. They point out that Justice Bhat and other supporters believed that the 10% increase without safeguarding historically underprivileged groups was probably a violation of the fundamental principles of equality. The Amendment was specifically seen by the dissent as a violation of fundamental rights. Furthermore, the majority’s approach, according to critics, broadens the definition of “equality” to protect economic status, which could lead to a lot more reservation claims (by income, by region, by disability, etc.) if courts permit social justice objectives to be reframed so widely. Two concurring judges used a different test under Article 15(1), indicating uncertainty regarding the standard of review, raising concerns that the ruling did not firmly anchor the amended rules in the identity of the Constitution. In conclusion, critics fear that Janhit Abhiyan weakens the framework for equality in the constitution and could lead to more legal and social issues in the future.
Inferences:
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, which authorized a 10% quota based solely on economic status, represents a historic moment in Indian reservation law. Even if they are equally disadvantaged, SC, ST, and OBC communities are not eligible for the government’s assistance, even though it permits it for poor forward-caste individuals. There are worries that the original goal of reservations, which were to alleviate deeply embedded social and historical disadvantage, will be undermined by this move from caste-based to income-based affirmative action. The Court has established a new precedent in equality law by upholding the amendment and violating the 50% reservation ceiling, but it may have also made it more difficult to distinguish between specific social justice and more general poverty alleviation. The Court has established a new precedent in equality law by upholding the amendment and violating the 50% reservation ceiling, but it may have also made it more difficult to distinguish between specific social justice and more general poverty alleviation. Future legal discussions and policy decisions regarding the scope and character of affirmative action in India are probably going to be influenced by the ruling.
Kirti Mahal VIPS 8076466788