Describe about Supreme Court’s judgement on 103rd Constitutional amendment. (HPAS Mains Question Paper 2022 – GS 2, Q.3)
The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which permitted reservations in public jobs and higher education based only on economic reasons, was enacted by the Indian Parliament on January 9th, 2019. In the constitution, this amendment introduced the 10%-cap-restricted Articles 15(6) and 16(6).
More than 20 petitions questioned the amendment’s constitutionality, claiming that it went against the Constitution’s core principles and the right to equality. The case was submitted to a five-judge panel by the Supreme Court on August 5, 2020.
The case was scheduled by the court on August 30th, 2022, along with four other Constitution Bench cases, for hearing starting in the first week of September. The court resolved on September 6th to decide when to hear the EWS reservation case first. On September 8th, the Bench agreed to hear arguments on the points put out by the Attorney General, which included whether reservations may be made exclusively based on economic considerations and if The reservations were unconstitutional because they excluded certain groups.
The Bench concluded deliberations on September 27th, 2022, and reserved a decision. In a 3:2 split, the court issued its ruling on November 7th, 2022, stating that both the amendment and the EWS Reservations were legally lawful. Justices Bhat and Chief Justice U.U. Lalit each authored a dissenting opinion, while Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi, and Pardiwala wrote separate concurring opinions.
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides 10% reservation among forward castes for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government jobs and colleges across India.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, 2019 by a vote of 3:2.
Views in support of EWS reservation:
- The 103rd Constitutional Amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The EWS quota does not violate equality or the foundation of the constitution. Reservation, in addition to existing reservations, does not violate constitutional provisions. The reservation is a form of affirmative action used by the state to include backward classes.
- The fundamental structure cannot be violated by allowing the state to make educational provisions. Reservation is valid not only for integrating socially and economically backward classes into society but also for disadvantaged classes. Reservations for EWS do not violate the basic structure due to the Mandal Commission’s 50% ceiling limit because the ceiling limit is not inflexible. 50% rule formed by the Supreme Court in the Indira Sawhney judgement in 1992 was “not inflexible”.
- Furthermore, it only applied to the SC/ST/SEBC/OBC communities, not the general category. The Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and backward class, for whom special provisions have already been made in Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4), constitute a distinct category from the general or unreserved category.
Views against EWS Reservation:
- Reservations were intended to be a powerful tool for ensuring equal access. The introduction of economic criteria and the exclusion of SC (Scheduled Castes), ST (Scheduled Tribes), and OBC (Other Backward Classes) because they had pre-existing benefits is unjust.
- The EWS quota may have a restitution mechanism to ensure a level playing field, and the exclusion of SC, ST, and OBC violates the equality code and basic structure.
- Allowing a breach of the 50% ceiling limit would be “a gateway for further infractions and would result in compartmentalization” (division into sections).