The Supreme Court held that 10% EWS quota to “the poorest of the poor” in the forward castes poses no threat to the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that 10% EWS quota to “the poorest of the poor” in the forward castes poses no threat to the basic structure of the Constitution.
a constitution bench of the Supreme Court In a 3:2 majority verdict on Monday, it upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides for 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions to ‘economically weaker sections of society’. But excludes the ‘poorest of the poor’Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) from its purview.
Read also: Will EWS quota cut down the share of those competing on the basis of merit: CJI
Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi and Justices JB Pardiwala delivered the majority opinion on a five-judge bench in an hour-long session, in which the Constitution Bench’s decision was live-streamed for the first time.
He conceded that 10% EWS quota to “the poorest of the poor” in the forward castes poses no threat to the basic structure of the Constitution. The three judges concluded that exclusion of SCs, STs, SEBCs and OBCs from the purview of EWS reservation was not a violation of the Equality Code. Justice Trivedi observed that “unequal people cannot be treated equally” as SC, ST, SEBC and OBC already enjoy reservation and the economically weaker sections cannot be treated equally. However, Justices Trivedi and Pardiwala, in their differing opinion, held that reservation should be kept on a time-limit.
Read also: editorial , Arbitrary and Exclusion: On EWS Quota
EWS quota qualifies individuals with a gross annual family income of less than ₹8 lakh. The backward classes are not included in the quota. The Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes that form the ‘homogeneous group’ are included in the existing 50% reservation given separately. The petitioners had argued in the court that the exclusion of backward classes left only the middle class among the forward castes to receive the benefits of the EWS quota.
The three judges held that the EWS quota does not violate the 50% ceiling laid down by Indira Sawhney’s judgment on reservation as the state can make “special provisions from time to time in March” towards an “all inclusive egalitarian society”. . The EWS quota, the three judges said, amounted to an “affirmative action” on the part of the state.
Read also | What is wrong in using economic criteria for reservation: Supreme Court
He held that the imposition of EWS quota on private unaided institutions is not a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Chief Justice UU Lalit, on his last working day, concurred with the minority view of Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who said that reservation on the basis of economic criteria was “itself permissible”, but the constitutional amendment should be struck down as it excluded went. Equally poor and deprived SC, ST, SEBC and OBC from its purview.
J. Bhat, who wrote minority view for himself and for the Chief Justice, said it was not correct on the part of the government to say that opening up of EWS quota for backward classes would give them a “double benefit”.
Reservations were historically designed not as a “free pass” but as a reappraisal mechanism to bring the underprivileged into the mainstream. The quota was a system to undo the social stigma caused by unequal access to education, jobs etc.
Classifying the poorest of the poor on the basis of caste and class amounts to “constitutionally prohibited discrimination” and strikes at the very essential elements of the “non-discriminatory rule”. He said that the Constitution stipulates fraternity as a deeply rooted principle of society. All human beings born from the same natural process should have equal access to opportunities to bring it into the mainstream.
read also , Arbitrary and Exclusion: On EWS Quota
Justice Bhat, however, agreed with the minority view that the state could legitimately make special provisions for the poorest of the poor on the basis of economic parameters. This was not a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Their only difference with the majority decision was regarding the exclusion of backward classes from the EWS quota.
The Constitution Bench had heard marathon arguments for seven days before reserving the matter for judgment on September 27.
The three issues that the bench examined included whether the amendment violates infrastructure by allowing the state to make special provisions, including reservation based on economic parameters; whether the amendment violates the basic structure by allowing the state to make special provisions with regard to admission in private unaided institutions; And whether the basic structure has been trampled upon by constitutional amendment by taking SEBC/OBC/SC/ST out of the purview of EWS quota.
The challenge to the 103rd constitutional amendment was sent to a five-judge bench in August 2020. The three-judge bench, which referred the matter to the larger bench, had refused to stay the implementation of the amendment.
Read also | Petitioners say EWS quota is an insult to equal society
Economic reservation was introduced in the Constitution by amending Articles 15 and 16 and adding clauses empowering state governments to provide reservation on the basis of economic backwardness.
Once during the hearing the government had said that it would increase the seats in its institutions by 25% to accommodate the EWS quota.
During the hearing, the court had once asked the petitioners what was “so fundamentally, so fundamentally wrong” in setting aside the economic criteria for granting reservation.
“What is so fundamental, so fundamentally wrong, in setting aside an economic criterion for reservation? Isn’t it that they don’t belong to a homogeneous group? is it cast in stone that they [beneficiaries of reservation] Must belong to a homologous group? Why can’t economic parameters be the basis for affirmative action of the state?” Justice Bhat had asked.
KK Venugopal, the then Attorney General of India, argued for the government that reservations for backward classes, and now EWS quotas, should be considered by the court as “a single approach of the state for the upliftment of the vulnerable”. sections of society”.
Read also | EWS Quota | 103rd amendment was a fraud on the constitution, petitioners told the Supreme Court
Dr. Mohan Gopal, in his reply to the petitioners, had stated that this is the first time that being a member of the Forward Castes has been made a condition for receiving government assistance.
Advocate Kaliswaram Raj submitted that fundamental rights are individualistic and the government’s justification for excluding SC, ST and OBC is on the ground that they are already availing 50% quota, there is no water in it.
Senior advocate P. Wilson had asked whether upliftment was possible through reservation. He said that reservation is not a poverty alleviation scheme.
Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh argued that reservation based only on economic parameters cannot be upheld in the Constitution.
Advocate VK Biju, while supporting the reservation, said that the amendment was passed in a democratic manner and not a fraud with the Constitution. He said that it is a step towards casteless society.