Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union Of India (2022)

This case challenged the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced the provision for 10% reservation in Government jobs and educational institutions for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society, excluding the beneficiaries of existing reservations (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes).

Key Provisions Involved:

• 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act (2019): Introduced Articles 15(6) and 16(6), enabling the State to make special provisions, including reservations in admissions and public employment, for economically weaker sections (EWS).

• Article 15(6): Provides up to 10% reservation for EWS in educational institutions.

• Article 16(6): Provides up to 10% reservation for EWS in public employment.

Main Issues:

• Whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment violates the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution by introducing reservations based on economic criteria alone.

• Whether excluding Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from the EWS reservation violates the equality principle under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution.

Arguments By Petitioners (Janhit Abhiyan and Others):

1-Violation Of Basic Structure:

• The petitioners argued that the amendment undermines the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution, particularly the principles of equality and social justice.
• They contended that reservations were originally meant to address historical and structural disadvantages faced by socially and educationally backward classes, not economic disadvantages.

2-Exclusion Of SCs, STs, And OBCs:

• The petitioners claimed that the exclusion of already reserved categories (SCs, STs, OBCs) from the benefit of the EWS quota is discriminatory and violates the right to equality under Article 14.

 3- Economic Criteria For Reservation:

• It was argued that economic disadvantage alone cannot be a criterion for reservation since the purpose of reservation is to correct historical and societal disadvantages.

Arguments By Respondent (Union Of India):

Economic Weakness As A Valid Criterion:

• The Union of India defended the amendment by stating that economic backwardness is also a legitimate ground for reservation, and the state has the constitutional authority to address this.

Exclusion Justified:

• It was argued that SCs, STs, and OBCs already benefit from other forms of reservation, and therefore, their exclusion from the EWS quota is not discriminatory but necessary to uplift other economically weaker sections.

Reservation Is Not Solely For Social Backwardness:

• The respondents contended that reservation policies could be reformed to include economic disadvantage, as the Constitution permits the state to make special provisions for any disadvantaged class, including the economically weak.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict. The majority upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, while one judge dissented.

Majority Opinion (3-2):

• The 103rd Amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Economic criteria can be a valid basis for reservation. The amendment does not infringe upon the principles of equality since it caters to a different segment of society.
• The exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota is not discriminatory because they already enjoy the benefit of reservation under other categories.

Dissenting Opinion:

• Justice S. Ravindra Bhat dissented, arguing that the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota violates the equality principle and thus is unconstitutional.

• Justice Bhat also contended that economic reservations fundamentally altered the nature of the reservation system, which was primarily meant for those facing social and educational backwardness.

Key Takeaways:

• Constitutionality of Economic Reservation: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of providing reservations based on economic criteria.

• 10% EWS Quota: The EWS quota of 10% in government jobs and educational institutions was upheld as valid.

• Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS Quota: The exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS reservations was deemed valid by the majority of the bench.

Conclusion:

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment was upheld by a majority of the bench, marking a significant shift in India's reservation policy by introducing economic criteria as a basis for affirmative action, while also excluding communities that already benefit from other reservations. The Judgment affirmed that the EWS quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. However, the dissent raised important concerns about the exclusionary nature of the amendment.