JANHIT ABHIYAN VS UNION OF INDIA (103RD AMENDEMENT ACT)

INTRODUCTION

The topic of reservations has frequently been hotly debated throughout the nation. For the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and Other Backward Classes, the First Amendment created a constitutional clause that gave the government the authority to implement reservation laws. The intention behind it in the outset was to give the underprivileged members of society opportunities they were unable to access because of their social standing or societal oppression. People have embraced and rejected the idea of reservations over time.

By amending Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution and inserting 15(6) and 16(6) respectively, the Parliament of India amended the Constitution on January 9th, 2019, bringing about the One Hundred and Third (103^rd) Amendment in the Constitution. This amendment was concerned with extending the reservation in educational institutions and employment opportunities to Economically Weaker Sections (herein after as “EWS”) of the society. 49.5% of positions in education and government are reserved before the 103rd Amendment, with quotas of 15%, 7.5%, and 27% for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, respectively.

The Amendment under Article 15(6) allows the State to implement extraordinary measures, such as reservations in educational institutions, for the progress of any economically underprivileged group of citizens. Any educational institution, including both aided and unaided private colleges, is allowed to provide these accommodations, with the exception of minority educational institutions regulated by Article 30(1). The document further specifies that reservations for EWS citizens may be made for up to 10% of seats. The 10% cap is apart from any caps on current reservations.

The State may include measures for reservations in appointments under article 16(6). Again, in addition to the current reservations, these provisions will be capped at 10%.

Additionally, it should be highlighted that the aforementioned reserve is just facilitating in character as opposed to obligatory, which means that it does not oblige institutions to provide the EWS classes the 10% ceiling reservation but rather gives the state the ability to make preparations for it.

Since it was approved by the President of India in 2019, the amendment has been a source of controversy. It permitted the state to create special provisions for economically disadvantaged groups of society in both educational institutions and job possibilities. The legitimacy of the 103rd amendment to the constitution has been contested in as many as 20 petitions.

ISSUES

In its ruling, the supreme court effectively cites three key concerns that must be resolved:

1. Whether Reservation could be made exclusively based on financial factors?
2. Can States provide reservations in for-profit colleges and universities that don’t get government funding?
3. Can socially and economically backward classes, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes, and scheduled tribes be exempt from the application of EWS reservations?
4. Is it possible for EWS Reservations to exceed the 50% cap on reservations imposed by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (1992)?

ARGUMENTS (PETITIONERS)

The Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabha, as represented by Rajeev Dhawan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, MN Rao, and Meenakshi Arora, was one of the petitioners, along with Youth for Equality, SC/ST Agricultural Research and Education Employees Welfare Association, and The Peoples Party of India (Democratic). The petitioner’s submissions were as follows:

1. Based on long-standing prejudice these groups had endured, the Constituent Assembly awarded the backward class of society a reserve in 1949. To level the playing field, provide equitable representation, and remedy the historical injustices experienced by the lower classes, such a step was justified.
2. However, the 103rd amendment seeks to expand the reservation to a group of individuals who have never experienced marginalization or discrimination; as a result, this change goes against the basic foundation of the reserve policy.
3. It was further argued that the constitution supports the idea of social “and” rather than social “or” educational backwardness, which tells us that the social and educational requirements are not mutually exclusive of one another and both must be satisfied in order for a certain class of people to claim reservation.
4. Furthermore, EWS is maintaining the dominance of a particular segment of society since they were historically not oppressed in the same way as others who were. Additionally, this is making reservations more personal, which is contrary to their original intent, which was to eliminate intergroup disparities across social classes.
5. In effect, the aforementioned amendment expands the benefits of reservation to a class of society that is not economically weaker but financially incompetent, which advances the individual-centric notion of reservation that is incompatible with democracy itself.
6. Furthermore, the constitution’s standards and guidelines make it easy to identify the underprivileged class; yet, doing the same is highly challenging when trying to identify the EWS since financial capability and incapability are so ephemeral in nature. Additionally, reservations cannot be used as a gauge for reducing poverty.
7. The petitioners further argued that since the Indra Sawhney vs UOI [MANU/SC/0104/1993] judgment and subsequently the Mandal Commission report had established that economic factors could not be the only ones used to grant reservations, this 5-judge bench was unable to imply otherwise because the relevant judgment was rendered by a 9-judge constitutional bench.
8. Additionally, it was argued that the 103rd amendment would never end the practice of reservation because, even if the backward classes were brought up to par with the forward classes, people would still live in poverty, which goes against the spirit and goal of reservation as advocated by B.R. Ambedkar.
9. Going beyond the 50% threshold would be against the Equality Code since it would prevent members of the lower social classes from filling available seats in SEBCs, which would undermine the foundation of the Constitution.
10. Additionally, the amendment fails to explain how the poverty of the advancing class differs from that of the backward class. According to the Sinho Commission reports, the NITI AYOG Multi-dimensional Poverty Index, and other reports, the backward class poor are significantly poorer than the upper-class poor. As a result, their exclusion from the EWS quota directly discriminates against the forward and backward class of people.
11. Because it furthers the goal of a caste-free society, EWS reservation is in opposition to the preambular ideal. A vertical reservation is made inside another vertical reservation.

ARGUMENTS (RESPONDENT)

The Union of India, the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the State of Maharashtra, represented by Attorney General KK Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta were among the respondents. Following were the submissions made by the Respondent:

1. The preambular vision of economic justice is furthered by this amendment, which is based on the argument that giving a special benefit to the class that is backward due to economic inequality will advance the ethos of reservation and strengthen it. The ethos of reservation distinguishes between classes rather than castes. The amendment advances the creation of a caste-free society, which was the goal of the constitution’s authors.
2. The learned Attorney General of India, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, maintains that the aforementioned modification strengthens rather than weakens the constitution’s fundamental principles. Only when a constitutional amendment has the potential to alter the fundamental nature of the document may it be declared invalid.
3. The respondents contend that in order to improve the preambular vision of the constitution, one must read the constitution dynamically. It is important to consider Articles 38 and 46 of the DPSPs, which impose obligations on the state to promote justice and remove social, political, and economic disparities.
4. It is appropriate to classify people only according to economic factors. In a number of judgments, including M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, (1963 Supp (1) SCR 439), R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore & Ors, (1964 AIR 1823) and K .C Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (1985 Supp SCC 714), the Supreme Court has taken into account reservation when using poverty as a sign of backwardness.
5. It is further argued that poverty is what causes social and educational backwardness, and the aforementioned amendment attempts to remedy this inconsistency by defining a group of people who are in fact socially and educationally disadvantaged because of the economic inequality they experience in society. As a result, the Parliament is authorized to enact such an enabling provision that lessens economic inequality in the community.
6. Regarding the 10% ceiling limit for EWS reservations, the respondents contend that this limit does not in any way violate the rights of the SEBCs/SCs/STs/OBCs because it is an addition to the 10% of reservations already available to members of the backward class and thus has no bearing on their favor. SCs, STs, and non-creamy layer OBCs should be excluded because they already benefit from special provisions.
7. The respondents contend that the problem of exceeding the 50% limit and violating the Equality Code is not inextricable and that exceeding the limit can occur in exceptional situations. Furthermore, the Indra Sawhney ruling would have been violated if the amendment had extended this 10% reservation to the SEBCs/SCs/STs/OBCs, which is not the case in the current version.
8. By extending the advantage of reservation to the EWS, the amendment advances substantive equality to meet the needs of each segment of society and promotes the reservation spirit.
9. By balancing out the right against discrimination and the states obligation to enhance equality to each section of society by enlarging the bracket of beneficiaries of reservation, the amendment also strikes a balance between the Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, as demonstrated in M Nagraj vs. UOI [(2006) 8 SCC 212].

JUDGEMENT

EWS Reservations established by the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act of 2019 were upheld by the Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision. This Amendment enables States to make decisions about public employment and educational institutions based only on economic considerations. All five judges agreed that the Constitution does allow reservations based entirely on economic considerations, but the five judges couldn’t agree on who can use EWS reservations or how many seats can be reserved.

MAJORITY OPINION

-By Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice B.M. Trivedi and Justice J.B. Pardiwala

The 103rd Amendment was supported by the majority of the judges, who were adamant that the Constitution’s fundamental principles were not being breached. This amendment is a tool to assure the advancement and improvement of all disadvantaged groups within society, not only the socially and educationally backward strata of the nation. It must function as a weapon to combat disparities and advance toward the objective of creating an equitable society.

Furthermore, according to Justice Maheshwari, the Mandal Commission’s 50% cap is not rigorous in character and only applies to reservations covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) of the Constitution. By allowing the state the authority to adopt specific special provisions for awarding reservations to the Economically Backward Classes based on economic factors, it does not undermine the Constitution’s fundamental framework. The amendment is primarily focused on finding an optimal balance between the elements of equality of opportunity for everyone and meritocracy.

To ensure economic and social fairness for all citizens of the nation, reservation is a tool, not an end in and of itself. The emphasis should always be on providing possibilities for education and employment in order to eradicate the backwardness and horrors that some backward people are exposed to. Discrimination should be eradicated since it is an inherent social evil in all societies and calls for reservations.

Justice Trivedi continued by stating that it would be a valid categorization under Article 14 of the Constitution to classify people based on their economic circumstances under the EWS group. It satisfies all requirements, including being non-arbitrary, having a reasonable relationship with the reservation’s goal, and standing out from others who were excluded because the categorization is based on economic factors. Thus, it doesn’t go against Article 14 or even the fundamental principles of the Constitution to become invalid.

The justices emphasized the need to prevent reservations from becoming entrenched interests at the same time. The policies governing reservations need to be constantly reviewed and adjusted to reflect shifting social and economic circumstances (in light of the realities of the day). It shouldn’t remain there for an endless amount of time to the point where it develops a vested interest.

DISSENTING OPINION

-by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice S.R. Bhat

The reservation for the SCs, STs, and OBCs was more than sufficient to provide equality of opportunity, according to the two judges’ dissenting decision. More than this amount of reservations will be destructive to the meritocracy and will lower the country’s productivity. The roles will be reversed, and the broad category will experience prejudice and essentially become a minority in society. It “strikes at the heart of the equality code” and is somewhat “contradictory to the idea of equal opportunity.”

In order to secure the empowerment of those populations who have not had enough representation in society, article 16 was created. In other words, the social factors are prioritized or given far greater weight than the economic requirements.

Regarding access to public goods, the economic criterion is primarily constrained by the provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution. There is no justification for classifying EWS differently on the basis of economic grounds, and the 10% category of reserve for EWS over and above the already-existing 50% reservation violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

This ruling has reaffirmed the government’s commitment to helping all of the underprivileged and disadvantaged groups in the nation. Any action performed in order to accomplish this will be entirely acceptable and justifiable.

The justices who dissented, however, contend that Article 16 of the constitution, which addresses equality of opportunity in employment, forbids such a restriction. Giving reservations solely on the basis of economic criteria would go against the spirit of the constitution, which aims to provide equal representation to all classes of society. The purpose of this provision is to provide representation to the historically underrepresented and weaker section of society.

CONCLUSION

One may be able to conclude that India still experiences widespread poverty and requires strong measures to extend the social and economic benefit to every stratum of society after understanding and analysing the nuances of the 103rd amendment to the constitution, which introduces reservation to the economically weaker sections of the society under Articles 15(6) and 16(6). In order to narrow the gap between the affluent and the poor and produce a homogeneous society, the state must promote social mobility.

The amendment has been construed by the Supreme Court in a way that can enable it to achieve the preambular objective of ensuring economic fairness for all. In addition, the CJI UU Lalit and J Ravindra Bhat opposing opinion highlights the historical significance of quota as restitution for people who were consistently discriminated against because of their caste.

Although it is clear from this judgment that both social and economic backwardness exist in the society, it is important to note that these two types of backwardness must be considered together for the benefit of society as a whole.

The 103rd Amendment created a new category for people who have experienced financial hardship to qualify for reservation. The newest judgment has brought forth a fresh set of shocks, and it is yet unclear how it will affect India’s quota system and general caste-based discrimination. Until then, we can all only hope that it will have a beneficial effect and be directed toward realizing the goal of a welfare state where each person’s contributions are acknowledged and respected.

This case study is written by Mukund.