| Citation | Writ Petition (C) NO.55 OF 2019. |
| Petitioner | Janhit Abhiyan |
| Respondent | Union of India |
| Bench | Chief Justice U.U.Lalit, Justice Bela Trivedi, Justice Pardiwala, Justice Bhat and Justice Maheshwari |
Facts of the Case:
The Government had brought into force 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act on 2019. This amendment has added clause 6 in Art 15and clause 6 in Art 16 of the Constitution of India. This amendment has provided reservation of 10% to the Economically weaker sections (EWS) of society. Art 15(6) mentioned that reservation should be given in any educational institutions which includes both private aided institutions or private unaided institutions. However, it excludes minority institutions as they get protection under Art 30 of the Constitution of India. Art 16 (6) provides reservation of 10% to economically weaker sections of society in terms of government jobs and appointments. This 10% reservation would be independent of any existing reservation scheme.
Before this act the reservation scheme followed in our country was – 27% seats were reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC), 7.5% seats were reserved for Scheduled Tribes (STs) and 15% seats were reserved for Scheduled Classes (SCs). A total of 49.5% seats were reserved in both educational institutions ,government jobs and appointments following a 50% ceiling rule for reservation. This rule was mentioned in Indra Sawhney judgement (1993).
However, due to this act, several writ petitions were filed in Supreme Court challenging that the amendment has violated Art 14 and basic Structure doctrine of Constitution.
Issues Raised :
- Whether providing reservation on the basis of economic criteria violated the basic structure doctrine of Constitution?
- Whether this EWS reservation has breached the ceiling of 50% for reservation which was fixed in the Indra Sawhney judgement?
- Whether the government could force the private aided or unaided institutions to provide reservation to EWS students for admission in educational institutions?
- Whether this reservation scheme has excluded SCs, STs, OBCs and other socially and educationally backward classes?
Contention of the Petitioner
The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Amendment act in question was violative of Art 14 as the government is excluding Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Socially and educationally backward classes from the reservation provided to the EWS quota. As, they are violating Art 14 which is a part of basic structure doctrine hence, this quota is also violative of Basic Structure doctrine. He argued that reservation from the very beginning was provided on the basis of backwardness and inadequate representation of the weaker sections rather than on the basis of economic criteria. He further relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs Union Of India(1993), where the Court struck down the 10% reservation policy provided to the Economically weaker sections. In this case, the court also mentioned the 50% ceiling rule for reservation and clearly stated that the reservation should not exceed more than 50%. Hence, they have breached this rule. He further relied on the judgement of Gujarat High Court in Dayaram verma v. State of Gujarat (2016)where similar reservation on the basis of economic criteria was quashed.
Contention of the Respondent
The Attorney General of India contended on behalf of respondent that the Amendment act did not violate basic structure doctrine of Constitution. The Counsel for respondent argued that by giving reservation to EWS ,they are not violating any prior reservation quota given to SCs, STs and OBCs and the reservations given to them will remain unaffected. They contended that the 50% rule in Indra Sawhney judgement can be breached in exceptional circumstances. Through this reservation they are helping those section of people who are left out at the margin on the basis of their economic status. They relied on Bhim Singhji case where it has been mentioned that mere violation of Art 14 does not mean that it is violating the basic structure of Constitution. The violation of basic Structure should be considered when there is unethical and unreasonable change in Art 14. Hence, there is neither violation of Art 14 nor of Basic structure doctrine.
Rationale
The 5 judge bench of the Court upheld the validity of the Amendment Act in the ration of 3:2 . The majority judgement was given by Justice Maheshwari, Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Pardiwala in their separate concurring opinion.
Justice Bela Trivedi held that the equality of opportunity means that fair opportunity should be given to all sections of people not only to one section of people. She understood the fact that a certain section of people are facing discrimination in educational institution only due to their poor financial conditions. They neither had the means nor the resources to finance their education and they were also not eligible for reservations. Hence, She held that the act brought by the Parliament will help the weaker sections of society.
Justice Maheshwari emphasized the importance of reservation and held that the reservation should not only be given to socially and educationally backward classes but to any section of people who were facing discrimination. He mentioned that the ceiling rule of 50% is flexible and can be surpassed and hence, breach of this rule is not violative of any provisions of the Constitution.
Justice Pardiwala emphasized the importance of formulating a method to distinguish between different section of people belonging to backward classes and observed that economic criteria can be considered for reservation and hence, all the three judges held the Amendment act to be Constitutional and dismissed the petition.
Minority Opinion
Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit and Justice Bhat were of different opinion and declared the act to be unconstitutional. They held that the reservation was violative of Art 14 i.e Right to equality as they were excluding the SCs, STs ,OBCs and other socially and educationally backward classes .Also, reservation on the basis of economic criteria were against the fundamental principle of Constitution. Hence, their view was against the majority opinion.
Defects of Law
Discrimination on the basis of religion , race, caste were prevalent in our country from the Pre-Constitution period. So, our Constitution makers had made provisions to eradicate discrimination completely and they brought the concept of reservation to uplift weaker sections of Society. Initially reservations were brought only for a period of 10 years but later on every 10 years the time limit of reservations has extended. Many people have contended that there are still many section of people who are not getting benefit of these reservation scheme While there are also some people who are gaining undue advantage from these schemes. These policies have only deepen the divide among the citizens. Many politician use these reservation policies as a weapon to gain votes in election and hence, there are still many loopholes present in this system and even after 77 year of independence our country still requires strong measures to implement these policies effectively among the marginalized sections of people.
Inference
The main purpose of reservation was to uplift the weaker sections of society though it affects every section of society. Whenever there is topic of reservation there are many heated arguments and debates regarding this. Many people criticize this reservation system .However, many people are in favour of this system and whenever there comes a time of election, politicians started giving policies which would increase the seat for reservation and hence, they start abusing this process . Now, there are many less seats available for general category people which are not covered under the reservation scheme. Apart from this, almost every other caste is getting benefit of reservation. Due to which many people are making the false caste certificate to get those benefits and unfortunately the people who are in need of these policies are not getting any benefit from them . So, there is high time to check the reservation policies . There is a need to check the current position of SCs, STs and OBCs and then accordingly grant seats to them. Reservation in promotions should also be checked so that any unqualified person should not get promotion. The qualification being a necessary criteria should be implemented effectively along with reservation and the government should check whether the other government departments are following this rule or not. These provisions should regularly be checked by taking into account of changing socio-economic conditions of people.
Submitted by
Tanisha Madhyani
Law Centre-1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi