Supreme Court in majority verdict upholds 10% EWS reservation

The Supreme Court has in a 3-2 verdict upheld the reservation in government jobs and education institutions for economically weaker sections among forward castes. A Constitution Bench of five judges on Monday endorsed the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitution Amendment Act, 2019, passed by Parliament.

Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the amendment, while Justice Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment, with which outgoing Chief Justice of India UU Lalit concurred.

In their dissenting judgement, CJI Lalit and justice Bhat said reservation on economic criteria was not violative per se, but the amendment introduced 'constitutionally prohibited forms of discrimination' by excluding the poor among SC/ST/OBC from economically backward classes on the ground that they enjoyed separate reservations.

Holding that classification introduced by the 103rd Constitution amendment was contradictory to the essence of equal opportunity, justice Bhat held "this court has for the first time in seven decades of the Republic, sanctioned an avowedly exclusionary and discriminatory principle. Our Constitution does not speak the language of exclusion. In my considered opinion the amendment is the language of exclusion and violates the principle of justice and thereby the basic structure".

Justice Maheshwari held that EWS quota did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. "EWS amendment does not violate the basic structure as it is based on economic criteria, state forming special provision for EWS quota does not violate the basic structure." The 50% ceiling was "not inflexible" and thus the breaching of the said limit did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution in any way. "It is a means of inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged." Breach of 50% ceiling for reservation was, however, applicable for reservation with respect to socially backward classes under Article 16(4) and 16(5) of the Constitution, he ruled.

Justice Trivedi held: "The amendment as a separate class is a reasonable classification. Legislature understands the needs of people and it is aware of the economic exclusion of people from reservation." She also suggested re-examining the concept of reservation. "At end of 75 years, we need to take a re-look at reservations in general in spirit of transformative constitutionalism. Be it noted that as per Article 334 of the Constitution, the provisions of the Constitution relating to the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the House of the People and in the legislative assemblies of the states would cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of 80 years from the commencement of the Constitution...Therefore, similar time limit if prescribed, for the special provisions in respect of the reservations and representations provided in Article 15 and Article 16 of the Constitution, it could be a way forward leading to an egalitarian, casteless and classless society," Justice Bela said in her verdict.

Upholding the Constitutional amendment, Justice JB Pardiwala rule: "The ones who have moved ahead should be removed from Backward Classes so that ones in need can be helped."