DATE OF THE CASE: 7th November 2022
APPELLANT: Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabha; Youth for Equality; SC/ST Agricultural Research and Education Employees Welfare Association; People’s Party of India(Democratic).
RESPONDENT: Union of India; Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment; The State of Maharashtra; Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions.
BENCH/ JUDGES: U.U. Lalit CJI, Dinesh Maheshwari J, S.R. Bhat J, B.M. Trivedi J, J.B. Pardiwala J.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Constitution of India: Article 14[1], 15(6)[2] and 16(6)[3].
FACTS:
The Parliament of India enacted the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 on January 9th, 2019 which allowed the State to make decisions on public employment and higher education on the sole basis of economic factors. Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution were amended by the Act by adding 15(6) and 16 (6). On January 12th, 2019, it was approved by the President, and on that day it was also published in the Gazette.[4]
The EWS criteria for employment and admission were notified on January 31, 2019 by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) based on the 103rd Amendment.[5]
Since then, more than 20 petitions have been filed opposing the 103rd Amendment’s validity.
What is this amendment about?
The Amendment under Article 15(6) allows the State to implement special measures, such as reservations in educational institutions, for the advancement of economically underprivileged citizens of India. Such reservations may be made in any educational institution, including both aided and unaided private colleges, except minority educational institutions which are protected by Article 30(1)[6]. Furthermore, The State is allowed to include reservations in appointments under Article 16(6). In addition to the already existing reservations, these provisions will once more be subject to a 10% ceiling. This 10% limit is apart from any caps on ongoing reservations.[7]
What are the criteria for reservation?
- The person’s annual income must be less than Rs. 8 lakhs.
- The person should have no less than 5 acres of farmland.
- People who have a house less than 1000 square feet in a town.[8]
ISSUES RAISED:
- Can reservations be solely based on economic factors?
- Does the 103rd Amendment breach the fundamental framework by exceeding the 50% cap on reservations imposed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney(1992)?
- Can Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Socially and Economically Backward Classes be excluded from the provision of EWS Reservations?
CONTENTIONS:
Arguments from the Petitioner’s side:
- The objective of the 103rd amendment is to expand the reservation to a group of individuals who have never experienced marginalization or discrimination; as a result, this amendment goes against the basic foundation of the reservation policy.
- The petitioners further argued that the Indra Sawhney judgment[9] and subsequently, the Mandal Commission report established that economic factors could not be the only basis that is used to grant reservations.
- In the same judgment, it was also held that the 50% ceiling limit should only change in extraordinary circumstances and as there were not any extraordinary circumstances in the case of these reservations, the 50% ceiling limit should not be changed.
- Additionally, it was argued that the 103rd amendment would never end the practice of reservation because, even if the backward classes were brought up to par with the forward classes, people would still live in poverty, which goes against the spirit and goal of reservation as propounded by B.R. Ambedkar.
- The 103rd Amendment Act only gives reservation to the general caste which is socially and educationally backward and excludes SC/ST and SEBC which violates Article 14(Right to equality) and the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
- Furthermore, EWS reservation is in opposition to the preambular vision of the country because it furthers the goal of a caste-free society. It makes a vertical reservation inside of a vertical reservation.[10]
Arguments from the Respondent’s side:
- The respondents are of the view that the ethos of reservation distinguishes between classes, not castes, and so this amendment is based on the justification of giving a special benefit to the backward class that is backward due to economic inequality, thereby advancing the justification of reservation and bolstering the preambular vision of economic justice. The constitutional amendment advances the goal of the constitution’s authors of a caste-free society.
- According to the Attorney general of India, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the aforementioned change strengthens rather than weakens the constitution’s fundamental principles. The respondents contend that to strengthen the preambular vision of the constitution, one must read the constitution dynamically. It is important to consider Article 38[11] and 46[12] of the DPSPs, which impose obligations on the state to promote justice and remove social, political, and economic disparities.
- It is appropriate to classify people solely according to economic factors. In various decisions, including M.R. Balaji, R Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, and Vasanth Kumar, the Supreme Court has viewed poverty as a sign of backwardness while taking into account reservations.
- The respondents contend that the 10% ceiling restriction for EWS reservations does not, in any way, violate the rights of SCs, STs, OBCs, or SEBCs because it is an addition to the existing 10% quota for the underprivileged group and hence does not work against their interests. SCs, STs, and non-creamy layer OBCs should be excluded because they already benefit from special provisions.
- It is further contended that the issue of exceeding the 50% limit and violating the Equality Code is not inseparable and that exceeding the limit can occur in exceptional situations. The amendment advances substantive equality in response to the demands of each societal segment, and it promotes the reservation ethos by extending the advantage of the reservation to the EWS.[13]
JUDGMENT AND RATIONALE:
On 7th Nov, 2022, the Supreme Court five-judge bench upheld the validity of the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 which provides EWS reservations by a 3:2 majority declaring it constitutionally valid.[14]
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari stated that “Reservations for economically weaker sections of citizens up to 10% in addition to the existing reservations does not result in violation of any essential feature of the Constitution and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India on account of breach of the ceiling limit of 50%. This is because that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisioned by Articles 15(4)[15], 15(5)[16] and 16(4)[17] of the Constitution of India.”
Moreover, Also, in light of the objectives of substantive equality envisioned by the earlier judgments of the Apex Court. Justice Bela M. Trivedi asserts that it would be fair to classify those who are economically weaker as a different class. According to Justice Pardiwala, economic factors may be valid considerations for affirmative action.[18]
However, Justice Bhat, giving the dissenting opinion, disagreed strongly with the majority’s opinion that “economic factors” are adequate for Article 15’s purpose (reservation in public employment). He emphasized that Indra Sawhney had indicated that reservations cannot be granted solely based on economic concerns. However, the Apex Court did not opine that reservations cannot be granted based on economic factors.
According to Justice Bhat, “adequate representation” is the basis for the reservation imposed as per Article 16(4). The economically underprivileged sectors are not qualified for the reservation proposed under Article 16 since they are not marginalized.[19]
INFERENCE:
The 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 was enacted to provide reservation benefits to the general category of economically weaker sections of society. The 10% ceiling resolves issues of educational and economic inequality in India. As this amendment provides reservations based on class, this will promote a classless society in India. Due to their financial inability to compete on an equal footing with those who are economically more privileged, the economically weaker segments of society are currently mostly excluded from attending higher educational institutions and obtaining public employment. Therefore, the 10% quota might enable them to advance in society. However, with this amendment, the practice of reservations will never end in society. Historically, reservations were aimed to provide benefits to backward classes who face discrimination and bring them to par with forward classes but even if the backward classes were brought up to par with the forward classes, people would still live in poverty.
The Supreme Court judgment upholding 10% reservations has lifted all restrictions and opened the room for constitutional interpretation. With this ruling in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India[20], the Supreme Court of India has gone a little beyond its previous rulings, overturning the ceiling limit and allowing for a more open interpretation, stating that adding 10% to the existing reservations does not violate any fundamental principle of the Constitution and does not harm the fundamental structure of the Constitution of India because the ceiling limit of 50% has been exceeded. However, it will be interesting to observe how the public responds and how this verdict will be used as a standard for subsequent initiatives.
BHUMIKA GROVER
1st year, BA LLB(Hons.)
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
[1] INDIA CONST. art 14.
[2] INDIA CONST. art 15, cl. 6.
[3] INDIA CONST. art 16, cl. 6.
[4] SUPREME COURT OBSERVER, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/janhit-abhiyan-union-of-india-ews-reservation-case-background/ (last visited Jan 25, 2023).
[5] THE INDIAN EXPRESS, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/quotas-poor-forward-castes-supreme-court-rule-8254179/ (last visited Jan 25, 2023).
[6] INDIA CONST. art 30, cl. 1.
[7] THE INDIAN EXPRESS, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/quotas-poor-forward-castes-supreme-court-rule-8254179 (last visited Jan 25, 2023).
[8] Aditi Priyadarshi, Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India: Tracing the History of 103rd Constitutional Amendment, PRIME LEGAL (Jan 25, 2023, 10:10 AM), https://primelegal.in/2022/11/13/janhit-abhiyan-v-union-of-india-tracing-the-history-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment/#:~:text=It%20was%20passed%20in%20Lok,weaker%20sections%20of%20the%20society.
[9] Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India AIR 1993, SC 477.
[10] Ojaswini Gupta, Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India, 2022: Case comment, LawBhoomi (Jan 25, 2023, 8:15 AM), https://lawbhoomi.com/janhit-abhiyan-vs-union-of-india-2022-case-comment/
[11] INDIA CONST. art. 38.
[12] INDIA CONST. art. 46.
[13] Ojaswini Gupta, Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India, 2022: Case comment, LawBhoomi (Jan 25, 2023, 8:15 AM), https://lawbhoomi.com/janhit-abhiyan-vs-union-of-india-2022-case-comment/
[14] Ashok KM, Basic Structure Not Violated: Supreme Court Upholds Application Of EWS Quota To Private Unaided Educational Institutions, LiveLaw (Jan 25, 2023, 11:10 AM), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-ews-quota-private-educational-institution-janhit-abhiyan-vs-union-of-india-2022-livelaw-sc-922-213522.
[15] INDIA CONST. art 15, cl. 4.
[16] INDIA CONST. art 15, cl. 5.
[17] INDIA CONST. art 16, cl. 4.
[18] Ashok KM, Reservation An Exception To General Rule Of Equality; Enabling Provisions Do Not Form Basic Feature Of Constitution: Supreme Court, LiveLaw (Jan 25, 2023, 10:10 AM), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-reservation-enabling-provision-basic-feature-janhit-abhiyan-vs-union-of-india-2022-livelaw-sc-922-213539
[19] Aditi Priyadarshi, Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India: Tracing the History of 103rd Constitutional Amendment, PRIME LEGAL (Jan 25, 2023, 10:10 AM), https://primelegal.in/2022/11/13/janhit-abhiyan-v-union-of-india-tracing-the-history-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment/#:~:text=It%20was%20passed%20in%20Lok,weaker%20sections%20of%20the%20society.
[20] Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1540