Menu

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JANHIT ABHIYAN V. THE UNION OF INDIA (2022)

Case Comment, Publications
7 November 2022 (EWS Reservation Case)

Hon’ble Judges- Justice Uday Umesh Lalit (CJI),

Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice J B Pardiwala, and

Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat

Case Comment:

In a 3-2 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing EWS reservation. With this, the Court extended the net of reservation benefits to include solely economic backwardness.

  1. FACTS:

The case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India centres on the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment to the Indian Constitution, a landmark legislative change that introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in educational institutions and government employment. This amendment, which added new provisions under Articles 15(6) and 16(6), was designed to provide reservation benefits to economically disadvantaged individuals who do not already benefit from existing quotas for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).

The amendment aimed to address economic inequality by extending affirmative action to sections of the population that had been excluded from the existing reservation framework. However, it also sparked significant legal and constitutional debates. Critics argued that the amendment might undermine the Constitution’s basic structure by exceeding the 50% cap on reservations established by the Supreme Court in the 1992 Indra Sawhney case. Additionally, concerns were raised about the amendment’s exclusive reliance on economic criteria for reservations, a departure from the traditional focus on social and educational backwardness, which has been the cornerstone of India’s affirmative action policies.

The petitioners, including Janhit Abhiyan, contended that this economic-based reservation could lead to a slippery slope, potentially opening the door for further amendments that might dilute the

principles of equality and meritocracy. Furthermore, they argued that by excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota, the amendment might inadvertently perpetuate existing social inequalities rather than addressing them.

The Supreme Court’s five-judge bench took up the case to determine whether the amendment conformed to the constitutional principles of equality and social justice. After extensive arguments from both sides, the Court delivered its final judgment in November 2022, affirming the amendment’s validity but also leaving room for ongoing discussions about the future of affirmative action in India.

  1. PARTIES:

Petitioner: Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabha; Youth for Equality; SC/ST Agricultural Research and Education Employees Welfare Association; Peoples Party of India(Democratic)

Lawyers: Rajeev Dhawan; Gopal Sankaranarayanan; MN Rao; Meenakshi Arora

Respondent : Union of India; Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment; The State of Maharashtra; Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Lawyers: Attorney General KK Venugopal; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta

  1. ISSUES RAISED:

Several important legal questions were brought before the Supreme Court in this case:

  • Constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment: Does the amendment that introduces EWS reservations violate the basic structure of the Indian Constitution? It was the main issue raised by the petitioner.
  • Economic Criteria for Reservation: Another question which was raised was, Is it constitutional to base reservations solely on economic status?
  • 50% Ceiling on Reservations: Does the introduction of the EWS quota, on top of existing reservations, break the 50% limit on reservations? If so, is this breach legally permissible? The petitioner also questioned the reservation limit
  • Exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS Quota: Is it discriminatory to exclude SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS reservation, potentially violating the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution?
  1. CONTENTIONS:
Arguments from the petitioners:

The petitioners asserted that the 103rd Amendment is illegal because it creates a new type of reservation based only on economic status, which has never been done before in Indian legal history. They further alleged that barring SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota breaches Article 14’s guarantee of equality. Furthermore, they argued that the modification violates the 50% reservation cap, which was intended to ensure equity and fairness.

Arguments from respondents:

On the other hand, the administration defended the change, claiming it was necessary and did not contradict the Constitution’s fundamental framework. They argued that economic criteria are a valid basis for reservations to help those suffering from poverty and economic hardship, who are not covered by existing quotas. The government also stated that the 50% reservation limit isn’t a strict rule and can be adjusted to meet the needs of economically weaker sections.

  1. RATIONALE:

In a majority vote, the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Amendment, concluding that it did not violate the Constitution’s fundamental structure. The Court concluded that the legislature had the jurisdiction to make economic-based reservations. The majority ruling further said that the 50% reservation limitation is not an absolute restriction and may be exceeded in specific circumstances, such as the EWS quota.

The Court further argued that omitting SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota was appropriate because these categories already receive other reservations. The EWS quota was intended to assist economically disadvantaged individuals who do not benefit from the existing reservation system. The judgment emphasized that this measure was a form of affirmative action designed to promote real, substantive equality.

The Bench delivered the Judgment on November 7th, 2022 and declared that the Amendment and EWS Reservations were constitutionally valid. On May 9th, 2023, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud led a 5- Judge Constitution Bench and dismissed the petition stating there were no grounds to review the Judgement.

  1. DEFECTS OF LAW:

While the decision represented a significant advancement in Indian constitutional law, it also generated certain concerns. First, reducing the 50% reservation restriction risks undermining the principle of equality by potentially paving the way for future increases in reserved quotas, which could further fragment the competitive landscape in education and employment. Such a shift might lead to a dilution of meritocracy, where individuals are selected based on criteria other than merit, thus challenging the fairness of the system.

Second, the decision did not adequately account for the complex interplay between economic and social disadvantages, particularly for SCs, STs, and OBCs, who have historically faced both

significant social discrimination and economic hardships. The exclusion of these groups from the EWS quota overlooks the reality that economic deprivation often coexists with social marginalization. This could lead to a situation where those most in need of support are left out of the benefits intended by the amendment.

Finally, the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota could be interpreted as a form of reverse discrimination, which may violate the equality principle enshrined in the Constitution. This exclusionary approach may inadvertently reinforce existing societal hierarchies by providing economic benefits solely to upper-caste individuals, thereby perpetuating inequalities rather than alleviating them. Moreover, this could lead to increased social tensions and a sense of injustice among those who feel left out of the reservation benefits, further complicating the already delicate balance of affirmative action policies in India.

  1. INFERENCE:

The Janhit Abhiyan v. The Union of India case is a watershed moment in India’s long-running reservation debate. By maintaining the EWS reservation, the Supreme Court recognised that economic hardship is a legitimate cause for affirmative action. However, this ruling raises important doubts concerning the future of India’s reservation rules. The decision reflects a shift towards a more liberal interpretation of constitutional constraints on reservations, which might have far-reaching implications for the Indian judicial system and society as a whole. It would be critical to monitor how this verdict is implemented and whether it leads to more legal challenges or changes in India’s quota regime.

According to me the decision declared by the supreme court was justified. Reservation for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) is required for promotion equality to those people who are not in any category of Schedule Castes (SC), Schedule Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) and are also economically weak. These people didn’t get any reservation at any place which makes it tough for them to get excess to education and employment. Furthermore I agree with the decision of not including SCs, STs and OBCs in the EWS quota which makes this decision non discriminatory.

  1. REFERENCES:
  1. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2022) 10 SCC 1 (India).
  2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 (India).
  3. INDIA CONST. art. 15 (6)
  4. INDIA CONST. art. 16 (6)
  5. INDIA CONST. art. 14.
  6. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 (India).
  7. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1 (India).
  8. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Reservations and the Constitution: The Politics of Discrimination, 41 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 3797 (2006).
  9. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Constitutionalism and the Reservation Debate, 20 Nat’l L. Sch. India Rev. 56 (2008).
  10. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, 123 (Oxford University Press 1999).
Ashtha Goel

Baba Farid Law College, Punjab