Satya Prakash
New Delhi, November 7
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutional validity of 10 per cent quota for economically weaker section (EWS) in government jobs and educational institutes, saying it didn’t violate basic structure of the Constitution.
By 3:2 majority, a five-judge Constitution Bench, which had reserved its verdict on September 27 after hearing the petitioners (the Centre and others), declared that the 103rd constitutional amendment providing for the EWS quota was valid.
Editorial: Reservation for EWS
There were four separate judgments. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice JB Pardiwala, who delivered separate verdicts, upheld the validity of EWS quota law. Justice S Ravindra Bhat delivered a dissenting verdict and CJI UU Lalit agreed with him.
The minority verdict faulted the 103rd Amendment and declared it unconstitutional for excluding the SC/ST and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from the ambit of EWS reservation. However, the majority said the EWS quota law did not violate the equality code of the Constitution or the basic structure of the Constitution. On the issue of exceeding the 50 per cent ceiling, the majority said it would not apply to EWS reservation.
“The 103rd Constitution Amendment cannot be said to have breached the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the state to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria,” Justice Maheshwari held. He said the amendment did not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution on account of breach of the 50 per cent ceiling “because that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India”.
In her concurring verdict, Justice Trivedi said EWS quota was based on “reasonable classification”.
“As laid down by this court, just as equals cannot be treated unequally, unequals also cannot be treated equally,” she said. Justice Trivedi said it was time to revisit the reservation/affirmative action system followed in India. “However, at the end of 75 years of our Independence, we need to revisit the system of reservation in the larger interest of the society as a whole, as a step forward towards transformative constitutionalism,” she said.
Justice Pardiwala said reservation should not continue for an indefinite period. “The idea of Baba Saheb Ambedkar was to bring social harmony by introducing reservation for only 10 years. However, it has continued past seven decades. Reservation should not continue for an indefinite period of time so as to become a vested interest,” he said. He noted that the 103rd Amendment signified Parliament’s intention to expand affirmative action to hitherto untouched groups who suffer from similar disadvantages as the OBCs competing for opportunities.
Holding that development and the spread of education had resulted in tapering the gap between different classes to a considerable extent, Justice Pardiwala said, “As larger percentages of backward class members attain acceptable standards of education and employment, they should be removed from the backward categories so that the attention can be paid towards those classes which genuinely need help.”
The Centre had defended the EWS quota law, asserting that it did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution and did not disturb the 50 per cent existing quota meant for SCS, STs and OBCs. It had been given for the first time without eroding the “totally independent” reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs, it had contended during the hearing. There were 40 petitions challenging the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019.
Cong hails verdict, DMK unhappy
The response of the Opposition parties was mixed. Praising the verdict, Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh said the amendment providing for the EWS reservation was the result of a process initiated by the Manmohan government. The DMK called it a “setback to struggle for social justice.”
It’s time to revisit quota system
Idea behind quota was to bring social harmony… was meant for only 10 years… shouldn’t continue for indefinite period so as to become a vested interest. — Justice JB Pardiwala
