Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India on 7 November, 2022

Advertisements

Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India on 7 November, 2022

Facts of the Case

The two houses of the parliament passed the 103^rd Amendment Bill on January 10, 2019, subsequently the bill received the, then President Ram Nath Kovind’s assent on January 12. The One Hundred and Third Amendment Act, 2019 introduced a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society in higher education and matters of public employment. It came into effect on January 14 and since its enactment, the bill has been a matter of debate due to the questions arising on its constitutional validity. Various petitions have been filed in court challenging the validity of the amendment; arguing that it violates the basic structure of the constitution. According to petitioners, the bill infringes Article 14 – Fundamental Right to Equality by excluding SCs, STs and OBCs from the reservation. It violates a previous judgement given by SC on the landmark case of Indra Sawhney & ors. v. Union of India that said that the maximum reservation allowed under all quotas cannot exceed 50% and that reservation cannot be based solely on economic criteria. Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta vehemently defended the government’s position in the case stating that the reservation provided under the amendment is different and had been provided without disturbing the 50% ceiling of the quote meant for Socially And Economically Backward Classes (SEBC). After Various hearings in 2019, the court reserved its order on the matter and denied to pass a stay order, consequently,  the 103^rd Amendment remained in effect. Furthermore case was referred to a constitutional bench in August 2020 and in August 2022 the Supreme Court decided to hear the case along with other constitutional bench matters in September 2022. The matter was eventually heard by a Constitutional bench of five judges and the verdict upheld the validity of the Amendment.

Issues Raised

• Is the Amendment constitutionally valid and does it violate the basic structure of the constitution? 
• Is excluding Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Other Backward Classes and Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) from the scope of EWS reservation a Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality).
• Is the Amendment violative of the 50% ceiling on reservation that was established in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India.
• Can giving a reservation solely on Economic criteria be valid.
• Can reservations be provided in institutions that do not receive government’s aid or finance.

Contentions by the Petitioners 

Shortly after the bill passed, a Non-governmental organization filed a PIL challenging the bill in the Supreme Court. The DMK (political party based in the state of Tamil Nadu) filed a motion in Madras High Court challenging the amendment. And several other petitions were filed opposing the act on various grounds. The  arguments against the act are as follows 

• The Act violates the basic structure of the Constitution  as it infringes the fundamental Right to Equality by excluding STs/SCs and OBCs, SEBCs from the scope of EWS reservation. 
• The Amendment exceeds the 50% ceiling-limit on reservations, established by the case Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India. And it also infringes the principle that reservation cannot be provided solely on economic criteria established in the case.
• Imposing reservation on private unaided educational institutions is a breach of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
• The amendment promotes socially and educationally ‘forward classes’ and misrepresent itself as an economic reservation. Because the reservation for socially and educationally forward classes excluding the creamy layer cannot be said to be an economic reservation. 
• The petitioner has argued the reservation is based on financial capacity which is not a relevant criterion and does not benefit the poor.
• The amendment dilutes the existing reservation for STs/SCs and SEBCs and is only a political move to appease a particular section of society. 

Contentions by the Respondents

The Attorney-General and Solicitor General vehemently defended the Government’s position and presented their arguments validating the amendment. The stance put forward in favour of the Act were as follows :

The 103rd Amendment is “necessitated to benefit the economically weaker sections of the society who were not covered within the existing schemes of reservation, which as per statistics, constituted a considerably large segment of the Indian population.”

• Article 46 of the Directive Principles of State Policy commands the State to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the society and protect them from social injustice and EWS reservation is a required step in this regard. 
• In our Country, private unaided institutions play a vital role in the higher educational system providing education to over 1.34 crore students and thus, it is essential that the economically weaker section gets access to these facilities as mandated by the Constitution. 
• The Act does not violate the 50% ceiling on reservations provided in a previous judgement by SC as the reservation provided under it is different and independent from the reservation meant for Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) and hence, it does not meet the basic structure of the constitution.
• The act promotes economic welfare of the society by attempting to decrease the economic inequalities prevailing in the nation. 
• The Centre told the Apex Court that its Amendment granting 10% reservation for EWS is brought in to promote social equality by providing equal opportunities in higher education and employment to the section of the population who have been excluded by virtue of their economic status. 

Judgement Pronounced 

The Supreme court, on November 7, 2022, gave a split judgement of 3:2 and upheld the 103^rd Amendment Act. It stated that the act is constitutionally valid and does not infringes the basic structure of the Constitution. The court observed that economic criterion can be an appropriate basis for affirmative action as it works to provide a concrete equality. The amendment does not violates the 50% ceiling limit for the existing reservations as it is based on other criteria than social and educational backwardness and the ceiling limit itself is flexible as in extraordinary circumstances it can be breached. Also the reservation for EWS category is provided in addition to the existing reservation and does not affect it in any way. The court also mentioned that the reservation introduced by the amendment is not a binding provision but rather an enabling one. So to say that the educational institutions are not bound to provide a 10% reservation but the provision warrants the state to draft the EWS reservation if they wish to implement it. The court has also directed for the amendment to be implemented in such a manner that the existing reservations are not diluted. 

The court has taken into account that the amendment works to promote representation and inclusion of the section of the society that is excluded owing to their economic status. And it would help to bring equity among all classes. In its judgement, the court backed up the constitutional validity of the provision and noted that it is introduced to genuinely help the economically disadvantaged sections of society and does not violate the basic structure or any other law for that matter in order to provide a much required benefit for the masses. The criteria for the reservation and the provision is reasonable and it directly derives the goals that it aims to accomplish for the benefit of the poorer sections of society.

Conclusion

The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 amended the fundamental rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution to add Article 15 (6) and Article 16 (6). These clauses are added to provide reservations to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the people who belong to the ‘general category’ or categories other than Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes for admission to educational institutions including government and private whether aided or unaided institutions other than minority educational institutions and also for employment in central government jobs. The upper limit on the EWS reservation is 10% and it is independent of ceilings on existing reservations. Family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage are the bases to determine the “economically weaker sections” as mentioned in the explanation provided beneath the clause. Currently, a person with an annual family income of up to 8 lakh rupees can avail the quota.

There has been an age-long debate on Reservation in our nation. The reservation system started long before independence in the country, the first legislative reservation was introduced in 1921 and it has since become a standard across India. After Independence, the Constitution was drafted in a manner to provide reservations to Backward Classes. With time, various committees were formed to assess the situation of Backward Classes and according to the recommendations of the committee, reservations in higher education and employment has been provided to Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) namely SCs/STs and OBCs. After decades of providing reservations to SCs/STs and OBCs in order to uplift them and equip them with equal opportunities and equal representation in all the sectors, the government introduced an amendment to the constitution providing 10% reservation to the economically weaker class of people belonging to the unreserved category. It was about time that the government took a step to equip the unreserved poor class people with equal opportunities in higher education and employment, who are otherwise not able to get the same opportunities as the economically well off people and other reserved categories. Economic criteria is a precisely relevant criteria to form a class of people and provide reservations to fight the social injustice and economic inequalities prevailing in the society.
The caste-based reservations are a result of long historical exploitation of the then considered as ‘lower castes’ but in the long run, reservations are not a sustainable solution to the problem as it again creates a disadvantage for the unreserved categories in the modern times. With time, the social and economical state of the backward classes have improved significantly whereas the unreserved categories have grown to be at a disadvantage and feel a lack of opportunities owing to their poor economic conditions. The 103rd Amendment is a revolutionary change in the history of our reservation system as it provides opportunities to the class of people left behind due to the economic inequalities prevailing in society. And the same has been observed by the court as it upheld the validity of the Amendment. 

References

1. https://corpbiz.io/learning/janhit-abhiyan-v-union-of-india/#:~:text=Court%20of%20India-,Janhit%20Abhiyan%20v.,weaker%20sections%20of%20the%20society.
2. https://www-scobserver-in.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.scobserver.in/cases/janhit-abhiyan-union-of-india-ews-reservation-case-background/amp/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16892777874207&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scobserver.in%2Fcases%2Fjanhit-abhiyan-union-of-india-ews-reservation-case-background%2F
3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Hundred_and_Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India

written by Jagriti  Dwivedi of Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, An intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Admin