Supreme Court upholds EWS quota in 3-2 split verdict
- Category
Polity & Governance
- Published
11th Nov, 2022
-
Context
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has by a 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.
What were the major issues in front of the apex court?
There were three main issues in the case:
- Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment is violative of the basic structure for providing reservation solely based on economic criteria.
- Whether the amendment is violative of the basic structure for excluding the poor among the SC/ST/OBC categories from EWS Quota.
- Whether the amendment is violative of the basic structure for breaching the 50% ceiling limit.
EWS Quota:
- The 10% EWS quota was introduced under the 103rd Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2019 by amending Articles 15 and 16.
- It inserted Article 15 (6) and Article 16 (6).
- It provides for reservation in jobs and admissions in educational institutes for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
- It was enacted to promote the welfare of the poor not covered by the 50% reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).
- It enables both the Centre and the States to provide reservations to the EWS of society.
|
Summarizing the Verdict:
While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India U.U Lalit concurred with the minority view of Justice Bhat.
Majority view
|
Dissenting View
|
- The amendment is not violative of the basic structure on any of the above issues.
|
- Against the Fundamental Concept of the Constitution: Economic criteria can be used to provide reservation in education under Article 15 but not for reservation in jobs under Article 16.
- Element of Exclusion: By excluding the poor among SC/ST/OBC from economically backward classes (on the ground that they have enjoyed benefits), the 103rd Amendment practices constitutionally prohibited forms of discrimination.
- Reservation cannot be used as a poverty alleviation measure.
|
What are the existing Income based Mismatches in the Law?
- The existing income criterion of ?8 lakh a year has already been questioned by the Court in a separate case, as it is liable to result in excessive coverage of socially advanced classes.
- When those exempted from filing I-T returns are only those with taxable income below ?2.5 lakh, it makes no sense to extend the reservation benefits to sections earning up to ?8 lakh.
Impacts
|
Consequences
|
- Recognition of the Economic Backwards
- Societal movement from Caste-Based to Class based society.
- Addresses Inequality and equity (giving according to the needs).
- Vagueness in the criteria and several State based provisions related to jobs and admission in an educational institution can create confusion.
|
- The unavailability of Data regarding Income, property etc. can make the identification of the real beneficiaries difficult.
- Can be misused by a group of people using illegal documents and means.
|
Required Measures:
- Including other sections under Income-based reservations: It would better serve the objective of economic emancipation of other sections of society.
- Identification for the real beneficiary: The Government should make clear guidelines to identify economic backwardness and identify the beneficiaries of the EWS quota.