The Supreme Court has upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment that introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.
Three out of the five-judge bench, led by CJI U U Lalit, upheld the amendment, stating that its provisions do not violate the constitution.
While justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and B. Pardiwala upheld the amendment, CJI Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat dissented and wanted the constitutional amendment on the EWS quota struck down.
As per the majority view of Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi and Pardiwala, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. They also held that the breach of the 50% ceiling limit by EWS reservation isn't a violation either.
"Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action by the state so as to ensure an all-inclusive approach. It is an instrument not only for the inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations for EWS do not violate basic structure on account of 50% ceiling limit because ceiling limit is not inflexible," Live Law quoted the majority judgment.
Justice Trivedi said that the state has come out with the amendment for the advancement of EWS categories. She observed that the amendment creates a separate class of EWS. "The exclusion of SEBCs cannot be said as discriminatory or violative of Constitution," she added.
Justices Trivedi and Pardiwala wanted a deadline for reservations.
Meanwhile, in their dissenting judgment, both Justice Lalit and Bhat observed that the 103rd Amendment practices discrimination by excluding the poor among SC/ST/OBC from economically backward classes (on the ground that they have enjoyed benefits).
The duo also opined that breaching the 50% ceiling in matters of reservation would result in compartmentalisation.
The amendment
The amendment, passed by the Parliament in January 2019, enabled the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any economically-weaker section of citizens, including reservations in educational institutions, including private. It also stated that the upper limit of the reservation will be 10 per cent, which will be in addition to the existing reservations.
Petitioners' argument
The petitions challenging the amendment claimed that the EWS quota inverted the concept of reservation as a tool of representation for disadvantaged groups and converted it into a scheme for financial upliftment.
Academician Mohan Gopal, who appeared for the petitioners, argued that since the EWS quota excluded socially and educationally backward classes and confined the benefits only to the 'forward classes,' it violated the principles of equality and social justice. This amounted to an infringement of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Sr. Adv. Meenakshi Arora also argued that the 103rd Amendment did not consist of any "guardrails" which otherwise existed for other forms of reservation. The petitioners also argued that the 103rd amendment violated the 50% ceiling limit.
However, the government maintained that the 10% quota was not an addition to the 50% ceiling on the reservation but an "independent compartment."
The court heard marathon arguments for seven days before reserving the case for judgment on September 27.