Important Facts about Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India — EWS Reservation & 103rd Constitutional Amendment
Introduction
- In January 2019, the Indian Parliament passed the One Hundred and Third Amendment (103rd Amendment) to the Constitution, which modified Articles 15 and 16. This amendment aimed to expand reservations in educational institutions and employment opportunities to benefit the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society by introducing Articles 15(6) and 16(6).
- The Amendment under Article 15(6) allows the State to make particular provisions for the advancement of any economically weaker section of citizens, which includes reservation in educational institutions. The said reservation shall be applicable in all educational institutions, including both aided and unaided private institutions, except those covered under Article 30(1). It further states that the upper limit of EWS reservations will be 10%.
- Article 16(6) empowers the State to formulate provisions for reservation in appointments. This reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations, but within a 10% ceiling.
- While the amendment granted the State the authority to create special provisions for EWS in education and employment, it gave rise to disputes, resulting in 20 petitions challenging its constitutionality.
- The Supreme Court, through a constitutional bench of five judges, delivered a verdict with a 3:2 split. The main issues addressed were the constitutionality of the said amendment and its impact on the concept of the basic structure doctrine. This analysis provides an overview of the case, its key facts, the court's rationale, arguments from both sides, and the potential implications for reshaping the concept of reservation in India.
- Key Facts
- The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, empowered the State to provide a maximum of 10% reservation for EWS, excluding Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and non-creamy layer Other Backward Classes. Importantly, this reservation was permissive, not obligatory. Numerous petitions challenged the amendment's constitutionality, arguing that it exceeded the 50% cap on reservations.
- The Supreme Court Identified Three Primary Issues
- The use of economic criteria as the exclusive basis for granting reservations.
- The exclusion of socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), including SCs, STs, and OBCs, from EWS provisions raises concerns about discrimination.
- The 10% upper limit of reservation for EWS may potentially violate the 50% cap on reservations and the core principles of reservation as envisioned by the Constitution's framers.
Gist of the Arguments
- Petitioners' Arguments
- Reservation was initially designed to address historical caste-based discrimination. The amendment extended it to individuals who were not historically marginalized, undermining the essence of the reservation.
- The Constitution endorses both social and educational backwardness, implying that both criteria must be met for eligibility for a reservation.
- EWS reservation risked perpetuating a monopoly for financially incapable individuals over those who were historically oppressed.
- Identifying EWS was challenging, as financial status is a transient measure and unsuitable for poverty alleviation.
- Economic criteria alone should not be the sole basis for reservation, as established in prior Supreme Court judgments.
- EWS reservation would not put an end to reservations since people would remain impoverished, contradicting the intent of the reservation.
- The amendment creates an exclusive economic reservation that violates Article 14 by discriminating against economically weaker individuals among SCs/STs/OBCs merely based on caste-based exclusion.
- Reservation is not a tool for poverty eradication. Economic support schemes, education subsidies, and employment guarantees are more effective in addressing poverty.
- Respondent's Argument
- The amendment's objective was to provide special benefits to economically disadvantaged individuals, aligning with the preamble's vision of economic justice and a casteless society.
- Reservations should be based on economic criteria, as poverty often leads to social and educational backwardness.
- The 10% reservation does not infringe on SCs, STs, or OBCs, as they have separate quotas in place. Breaching the 50% reservation cap is allowable under extraordinary circumstances.
- The amendment strikes a balance between fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy, promoting substantive equality and addressing socio-economic disparities.
- The existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs remain untouched. Therefore, the amendment does not infringe upon the rights of historically marginalized communities.
Analysis and Judgment
- The court concluded that the amendment did not alter the basic structure of the Constitution, as it was enabling in nature and did not change the Constitution's character or content. Reservation was seen as an enabling provision aimed at achieving socio-economic justice and providing affirmative action.
- The exclusion of these groups from EWS reservations was not considered a violation of their rights since they had their own quotas and special provisions.
- Economic criteria alone were deemed justifiable for providing reservations under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Constitution.
- The 50% cap on reservations was not inviolable and could be breached in extraordinary situations to achieve substantive equality.
- The amendment applied to both aided and unaided private educational institutions, subject to Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution.
- Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat dissented, arguing that the 103rd Amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution due to its exclusionary nature and exclusive focus on economic criteria.
- The Supreme Court, with a 3:2 Majority, Upheld the Constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment.
Conclusion
The verdict of Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India highlights the intricacies of addressing reservations in India, especially for economically weaker sections. While the majority upheld the amendment, the dissenting view underscored concerns about exclusion and the emphasis on economic criteria. The case emphasizes the ongoing debate regarding reservation policies and their alignment with the Constitution's objectives of justice and equality. It underscores the need to strike a balance between historical discrimination and economic disparities in Indian society. For legal assistance, contact us.
