Three questions on EWS quota: Here's what the Supreme Court judges said

Supreme Court upholds constitutional validity of 10% EWS quota on 'economic basis'

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the 10 per cent reservation for the economically weaker section (EWS) in government jobs and colleges across India.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala gave the judgment.

In the five judgments delivered, CJI Lalit and Justice Bhat dissented. Reading out the verdict, Justice Maheshwari said that the 103rd constitutional amendment for the EWS quota is valid and it does not violate the basic structure of the constitution. He said:

1. Reservation is an affirmative action measure not only for socially and economically backward classes but for any disadvantaged section. Therefore, reservation solely on an economic basis does not violate the constitution.

2. Exclusion of SC/ST and OBCs from EWS reservations is constitutionally valid.

3. EWS reservation in addition to 50 per cent of all available seats is constitutional. This is because the ceiling limit itself is flexible and only applies to the caste-based reservation.

Justice Pardiwala said that the 103rd constitutional amendment is valid, agreeing with Justices Trivedi and Maheshwari.

Bhat and Lalit disagreed with the majority verdict on the validity of the 103rd constitutional amendment, which they said practiced constitutionally prohibited discrimination and struck at the heart of the equality code. “Allowing breach of the 50 percent cap set on reservation can lead to further infractions which can result in compartmentalisation,” Bhat said.

Three questions of EWS

K K Venugopal, the former Attorney General, had posed three questions in the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the quota.

The three issues are:

Whether the amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria?

Whether amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the constitution by permitting the state to make special provisions about admission to private unaided institutions?

Whether the amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the constitution in excluding the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation?

In January 2019, the Parliament inserted a clause in Articles 15 and 16 of the constitution which allowed people from the EWS to avail themselves of reservations in jobs and educational institutions. The clause empowered states to give reservation in both aided/non-aided private and government educational institutions. Minority educational institutions were exempted from such reservations. The ceiling of the reservation was 10 percent which would add to the existing other reservations.

After the reservation was implemented, a batch of petitions was filed by NGOs Janhit Abhiyan and Youth for Equality, and others, in the apex court to decide whether the grant of 10 percent reservation violated the 50 percent ceiling cap on quota and if ‘economic backwardness’ alone could be the sole criterion for granting quota in government jobs and educational institutions for those who were under general quota.