INTRODUCTION
Reservations in India have always been in the spotlight for controversies. At the time of its initiation, it was expected to persevere for only 10 years but it continued to exist and still exists. The 1st Constitutional Amendment provided reservations to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes. Then the 103rd Constitutional Amendment or the Constitutional (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act 2019, introduced 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the General category. A number of petitions were filed challenging this Act and the same was addressed before the Supreme Court in the JANHIT ABHIYAN v. UNION OF INDIA (UOI).
On November 7, 2022 the Supreme Court of India came with a landmark judgement that dealt with the same issue of reservation of seats for the economically weaker sections (EWS) of the society in education and employment. The case was heard by a Constitutional bench, headed by then Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit.
FACTS
After the Amendment Act, 2019, Article 15(6) which states that the state can make special provisions for the advancement of economically weaker sections (EWS) of the citizens in educational institutions, and Article 16(6) allows the state to reserve up to 10% of the government jobs for the members of EWS of the society. These provisions is in addition to any existing reservations. The Act received Presidential assent within days and then was published in the Gazette. However, the constitutional validity of this Amendment Act was challenged before the court through several writ petitions.
The case was listed as Writ Petition (civil) no. 55 of 2019 [WP (C) 55/2019] on September 8,2022. Writs were filed before the court contending that the reservation was violative of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution as it went against the principles of non-discrimination and equal rights for all citizens i.e. it violates Article 14 which guarantees that all people in India are treated equally before the law and have equal protection under the law.
Before the enactment of the Act, 49.5% of seats were reserved in both public appointments and educational institutions. SCs had 15%, STs had 7.5% and OBCs had 27% quotas.
The bench constitutes of former CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S.R. Bhat, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice B.M. Trivedi, Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
The petitioners in this case were Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabsa, the Peoples Party of India, the SC/ST Agricultural Research and Education Employees Welfare Association and Youth for Equality.
The petitioners were represented by advocates Gopal Sankaranarayana, Meenakshi Arora, Rajeev Dhawan and MN Rao.
The respondents in this case were the UOI, the sate of Maharashtra, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
The respondents were represented by Attorney General of India, KK Venugopal and the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether reservation could be granted on the sole criteria of economic status?
- Whether SCs, STs, and OBCs could 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?
- Whether the states could provide reservations in those private educational establishments that did not receive government aid?
RELEVANCE TO LAW
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, and Article 368 of the Constitution of India.
INDRA SAWHNEY v. UNION OF INDIA
In the historic and landmark judgement of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), presided by a 9-judge bench, the Supreme Court upheld the idea of reservation as a means to secure political, social and economic justice as well as equality of status and opportunity. However, the judgment also stated that the reservation should be limited i.e., it should not cross the 50% ceiling limit until and unless there’s an exceptional case.
CONTENTION
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER
It is violative of the Basic Structure of the Constitution – They said the Amendment Act was violative of the Basic Structure as it looked to unjustly enrich the privileges sections of the society that were neither socially and educationally backward nor inadequately represented.
It is against the vision of the makers of the Constitution – They argued that the idea of reservation by the constitutional makers was specifically made for the cultural and social reasons and the addition of the economic criteria would devalue their vision since the principle reason of the idea of reservation was to uplift and recognise the historical injustice meted out to people belonging to backward groups. They stated that the Act was providing benefits to the people who had never really experienced social disadvantages.
There is violation of the Right to Equality – It was argued by them that the Act violated the fundamental right to Equality as it did not apply to all the persons, it kept certain sections that also belonged to the SCs, STs, or OBCs, could not reap the benefits of the EWS reservation. The Act was hence, violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Violation or breach of the ceiling limit of the reservation – The Act violated the 50% ceiling laid by the Supreme Court of India in the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India judgement.
They argued that the intention behind Positive Discrimination was to end the monopoly of certain sections and create a society that is inclusive and ensures equal opportunities to the unequals. But the Act resulted to the creation of a Perpetual monopoly which was against the very idea of reservation.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
It is not violative of the Basic Structure of the Constitution – The Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal, stated that the Act did not violate ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution but it fosters it. He also argued that the exclusion of the above-mentioned classes, did not go against the Equality Code.
There is no breaching of the ceiling limit – The respondents argued that the EWS reservation did not violate any existing reservation that has been granted to the scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST), and the other backward classes (OBC).
The objective of the Amendment Act was to grant reservations to those who didn’t receive equal treatment because of their economic status.
It is an exceptional case – They stated that although the Supreme Court had established a ceiling limit of 50% in the landmark Indra Sawhney judgement, the limit could be breached during ‘exceptional circumstances’ as it is not a sacrosanct or unchallengeable rule. According to the respondents, the Act fell in the ambit of this exception and is justified for the upliftment of the general merit candidates.
RATIONALE – THE VERDICT
The 5-judge bench of the SC unanimously upheld the validity of the Amendment Act and dismissed the petitions challenging the legality of the same. They ruled that the Act did not violate the Basic Structure or any other provision of the Constitution. Justices Pardiwala, Trivedi and Maheswari formed the majority opinion while justice Bhat and CJI U.U. Lalit wrote the dissenting judgment forming minority opinion. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the EWS reservation by a majority of 3:2.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Despite being in existence since the constitution came into force, Reservation continues to be a burning topic among Indians. According to many people, the upliftment of particular section of a society is seer biasness but on the other hand, according to many it is a necessary step for the development of the unequals. Reservations in the field of education and employment might compromise the quality of institutions and workforce in the long run. Reservation may deepen the division among the citizens causing resentment and might also hinder development. Also, it has become an election weapon for the political parties.
Reservation, when initiated, was formulated keeping in view the then scenario of the Indian society. Hence these policies must be revisited, rechecked and re-regulated, taking into consideration the changing socio-economic conditions of the people.
These policies are often used for political advantages and electoral gains by the parties. So, proper regulation is needed.
LOOPHOLES IN THE CASE- It was argued that the Act excluded the socially and educationally backward classes(SEBC), Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes from the benefits of EWS reservation. Also there is the violation of the 50% ceiling limit leading to violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
Reservation in India has been and continues to be one of the most contentious and talked issues due to the discrimination and deprivation faced by certain sections of the society. Its roots go back the India’s age-old caste system. So, to bring the one’s who were discriminated to the same level to that of the mainstream people Reservation is a Necessary Evil. But proper regulation is mandatory.