A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on November 7, in a 3:2 majority decision, upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.
- The 103rd Amendment, which came into effect in January 2019, provides 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society.
- The 103rd Amendment inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution to provide up to 10 per cent reservation to the economically weaker sections (EWS) among non-OBC and non-SC/ST sections of the population.
- The amendment also empowered state governments to provide reservation on the basis of economic backwardness.
- A person who was not covered under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs, and whose family had a gross annual income below Rs 8 lakh, was to be identified as EWS for the benefit of reservation. The notification specified what constituted “income”, and excluded some persons from the EWS category if their families possessed certain specified assets.
Key points of the judgement
- Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala delivered the majority opinions on the five-judge Bench.
- On whether such a reservation on the sole basis of economic criterion violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution, Dinesh Justice Maheshwari took the expansive view that reservation was an “instrument of affirmative action by the state” and should not be confined to the SCs, STs, SEBCs, and the non-creamy layer of the OBCs but also include “any class or sections so disadvantaged as to answer the description of ‘weaker section’”.
- Justice Trivedi, on her part, noted that “the legislature understands and appreciates the needs of its own people”.
- The three judges in the majority held that reservation on economic criterion alone did not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
- Three judges on the Constitution Bench, in views which formed both the majority and minority opinions, said the policy of reservation in education and employment cannot continue for an indefinite period.
- Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who was part of the majority judgment, said the reservation policy must have a time span.
- She pointed out that quota for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and in State Legislative Assemblies would cease 80 years from the commencement of the Constitution. The representation of Anglo-Indian communities in Parliament and Assemblies has already stopped by virtue of the 104th Constitutional Amendment from January 25, 2020.
- Justice P.B. Pardiwala said “reservation is not an end but a means — a means to secure social and economic justice. Reservation should not be allowed to become a vested interest. Real solution, however, lies in eliminating the causes that have led to the social, educational and economic backwardness of the weaker sections of the community”.
- He said “long-standing development and the spread of education” had resulted in tapering the gap between the classes to a considerable extent. Large percentages of Backward Class members attain acceptable standards of education and employment. They should be removed from the Backward categories so that attention could be paid toward those genuinely in need of help.'”
( Sources: The Hindu and Indian Express)
