There is some cheer for India’s poor. The Supreme Court has upheld the 10 per cent reservation in educational institutions and government jobs for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), saying it does not violate the essential features of the Constitution of India.
In a 3:2 verdict by the five-judge Constitution bench on Tuesday, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 10 per cent quota, while Chief Justice of India (CJI) Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat dissented.
The Parliament passed the 103rd constitutional amendment in January 2019 allowing the government to provide a 10 per cent quota to EWS in the unreserved category. It was immediately challenged with as many as 40 petitions reaching the top court against the move.
What did the apex court say while making the ruling today? What is the 103rd constitutional amendment? What is the case and why is the Supreme Court ruling significant for the Narendra Modi government? We explain.
What did the majority say?
As per LiveLaw, ruling in favour of the 10 per cent quota for EWS, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari said, “Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action by state so as to ensure all inclusive approach. It is an instrument not only for inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes… Reservations for EWS do not violate basic structure on account of 50 per cent ceiling limit because ceiling limit is not inflexible.”
Agreeing with Justice Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi said, “The quota requires to be treated as affirmative action by the Parliament. No violation of Article 14 or basic structure of constitution is noted.”
She observed in her judgement that the central government has introduced the amendment for the “advancement” of Economically Weaker Sections.
“The EWS quota does not affect the rights of reserved classes by exempting them from its purview. The reservation was brought in to address inequalities created by the caste system. After 75 years, we need to revisit policy to live up to the philosophy of transformative constitutionalism,” she was quoted as saying by Indian Express.
Justice JB Pardiwala also upheld the EWS quota, adding that reservation should not continue indefinitely.
He stated, “The reservation is not an end, but means to secure social and economic justice… It must not be allowed to become a vested interest… The reservation should not continue for an indefinite period of time so as to become vested interested.”
What did the dissenting voices say?
Speaking against the verdict of the aforementioned judges, Justice Bhat said, “Introducing reservation on economic criteria is permissible. But the exclusion of backward classes among Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) on the ground that they have enjoyed benefits is arbitrary.”
He noted that excluding SCs/STs/OBCs from EWS reservation is “violative of basic structure”.
“This amendment strikes at the heart of the equality code which is the core of the Constitution. Permitting breach of 50 per cent rule becomes a great way for further infractions which would result in compartmentalisation,” Justice Bhat said, as per Bar and Bench.
Assenting with Justice Bhat’s verdict to strike down the 10 per cent EWS quota, CJI Lalit said, “I have concurred with the view taken by Justice Bhat. The decision stands at 3:2.”
What is the 103rd constitutional amendment?
Brought weeks before the 2019 general election by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act added Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution to provide 10 per cent reservation to EWS excluding SCs, STs, OBCs, and Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBCs) in higher educational institutions and government jobs.
The amendment allowed the Centre to provide quota solely on the basis of economic backwardness.
Article 15 bans discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, while Article 16 guarantees “equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State”.
ALSO READ: ‘Upper caste mindset of SC’: Congress leader Udit Raj questions apex court over EWS quota ruling
Why was the EWS quota challenged?
Many petitioners approached the Supreme Court in 2019 challenging the EWS quota, saying the amendment was “an attack on the constitutional vision of social justice” and “a fraud on the Constitution”, reports Indian Express.
They argued that the amendment also infringes on the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora told the apex court that backwardness was often a consequence of “non-representation in the country.”
The other argument of those against the EWS quota was that it breaches the 50 per cent limit for reservation decided by the Supreme Court ruling in the Mandal Commission case.
It was argued in the Supreme Court that the EWS quota violates 50 per cent reservation limit. PTI (Representational Image)
Defending the amendment, the then Attorney General of India KK Venugopal told the Supreme Court that the EWS quota would not breach the rights of SCs, STs and OBCs. “EWS have been given reservation for the first time. On the other hand, so far as the SCs and STs are concerned, they have been loaded with benefits by way of affirmative actions,” he said.
On the argument of violation of the basic structure, the central government contended that “to sustain a challenge against a constitutional amendment, it must be shown that the very identity of the Constitution has been altered,” reported Indian Express.
What is the Mandal Commission report?
The Second Backward Classes Commission, also known as Mandal Commission, was formed in 1979 to decide the criteria for defining the socially and educationally backward classes.
The report had recognised 52 per cent of the population at that time as “Socially and Economically Backward Classes” and recommended 27 per cent reservation for SEBCs which would be in addition to the existing 22.5 per cent quota for SC/STs.
The then-VP Singh government decided to implement the Mandal Commission report by extending the 27 per cent reservation in government jobs to the OBCs, however, the move was challenged in court amidst widespread agitation.
What was the Mandal case?
In 1992, advocate Indra Sawhney had moved the Supreme Court challenging the then PV Narasimha Rao government’s move to reserve 10 per cent of posts for “other economically backward sections…not covered by any of the existing schemes of reservations”.
A nine-judge bench had struck down the 10 per cent quota in a 6:3 verdict.
The top court had ruled that backwardness cannot be decided “exclusively with reference to economic criteria”, as per The Wire.
In the landmark Indra Sawhney ruling, the court had ruled that “social and educational backwardness” was the criteria for a group to be eligible for reservation.
Moreover, the Supreme Court had reasserted the 50 per cent ceiling to vertical quotas it had held in earlier verdicts in 1963 (M R Balaji v State of Mysore) and in 1964 (Devadasan v Union of India). The bench had stated that this 50 per cent quota limit will be applicable unless in “exceptional circumstances”, reports The Indian Express.
Recalling the landmark judgement, late PS Krishnan, a former secretary to the Indian government wrote for Indian Express in 2019, “As the Mandal judgement describes, the founding fathers of the Constitution were keenly and poignantly aware of the ‘historic injustices and inequities’ prevalent over the centuries in Indian society. These were not inequities against individuals. These were deprivations imposed on certain social classes as a whole.”
Why the EWS quota ruling benefits BJP?
The BJP government had passed the EWS quota with its core general category vote base in mind. Today’s landmark ruling has come ahead of the upcoming Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh Assembly elections. Whether it can bring electoral gains for the saffron camp will be known only after the poll results later this year.
Sources in the ruling party told New18 that the SC verdict backs Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s call for “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas“. According to party insiders, while the decision gave benefits to a certain class of people it did not take away from others.
“At no point, did the SC or ST communities feel that their rights are being taken away. PM Modi himself hails from the OBC Community and is sensitive to demands of the poor and downtrodden,” the BJP source told News18.
The party has welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying it is a “victory” for the prime minister in his “mission” to provide social justice to the poor.
“Supreme Court upholds the legality of EWS reservation for unreserved sections. Another big credit for PM Narendra Modi’s vision of gareeb kalyan. A big boost in the direction of social justice,” BJP general secretary (organisation) BL Santhosh said.
With inputs from agencies
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.