Judgment in Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India
The Supreme Court, through a 3:2 majority upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment to the constitution on the questions of,
The basic structure of the constitution,
Discrimination due to the exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs in the 10% quota of EWS reservation,
Economic criterion as the sole criteria to provide reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the constitution,
Application of 10% EWS reservation on private unaided educational institutions.
Basic structure of the Constitution
The Supreme Court referred to various previous judgments, such as Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala[12], etc., in order to understand and revisit the doctrine of basic structure of the constitution. It was held that an amendment is capable of violating the basic structure if it changes the form, character and content of the Constitution.
The court highlighted that the provisions for providing reservation to the weaker section by way of affirmative action do not form a part of basic feature of the constitution, as it is merely enabling in nature.
Reservation is an enabling provision, which allows the state to make arrangements for the upliftment of the weaker section of society. This, in court’s view, does not carry the weightage of violating the basic structure.
Exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs from the ambit of 10% quota of EWS Reservation
The court in its majority decision opines that the exclusion of other classes in the EWS Reservation is not an abrogation of basic structure and the fundamental rights of the weaker section of society.
The court’s reasoning is established on the fact that the SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs are already getting the benefit of affirmative action under the Articles 15(4), 15(5), 16(4), and have a certain quota earmarked for them in their favour.
Moreover, the court stresses on the fact that the EWS Reservation does not impact the benefit already accorded to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, as it does not encroach upon their ambit of quota provided to them.
The court furthers its reasoning by assuming that even if for the sake of the argument, it be assumed that the equality is violated by such a reservation, it shall be treated as a minor abridgment of the right and that too for justified and reasonable causes and hence does not amount to violation of basic structure and fundamental rights of the weaker sections.
Economic criteria as the sole criterion of deciding for reservation
The Constitution of India strives to provide an ‘economic democracy’ that aims at achieving economic, social and political justice.[13] The concept of economic justice furthers the goal of distributive justice[14] in Indian society as envisioned by the framers of the constitution.
The court analyses the importance of economic justice by interpreting the constitution holistically.
The court is of the opinion that restricting affirmative action to SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs would defeat the purpose and miss the texture of the concept of substantive justice as espoused in the constitution.
Moreover, the reservation cannot be availed solely on economic criteria under Articles 15(4), 15(5), 16(4), but it must not restrict the state to make special provision for the economically backward classes which furthers the preambular goal of the constitution.
The court does not put a blanket ban on providing reservation to economically weaker section. the court tends to give widest interpretation to the term ‘other weaker sections’ in order to realise the goal of distributive justice.
The court also stresses on the application of dynamic interpretation of constitution in order to realise the goals as espoused by the makers of the constitution and upholding its relevance in letter and spirit.
Breach of 50% ceiling of reservation
The petitioners challenged the amendment on the ground that it violates the 50% limit of reservation and hence violates the equality code. This was challenged with regard to the judgment of Indra Sawhney vs. UOI[18].
The court however, took the stance and quoted Indra Sawhney to establish that the 50% reservation is not inviolable. The limit could be breached in extraordinary situations. Moreover, since the 103rd amendment merely enacts an enabling provision for providing reservation to the economically weaker section, such a contention becomes unacceptable.
The basis of this 50% ceiling limit is that reservation should not be such that it adversely affects another section of society[19]. Keeping that in mind, if the state makes a law in order to realise substantive equality for any weaker section of society, it has the assent of the constitution to do so, in furtherance of fulfilling the preambular goal of equality.
#EWS #EconomicWeakerSection