Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 607

Citation	Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019
Name of the Case	Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
Date of Judgement	November 7, 2022
Case Type	Writ Petition
Bench	Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Justice S. Ravindra Bhat Justice Bela M. Trivedi Justice J. B. Pardiwala

Introduction

The issue of reservation has long been a topic of intense debate within the country. Initially conceived to provide opportunities to those historically oppressed or disadvantaged due to their social status, the First Amendment introduced a constitutional provision enabling the government to implement reservation policies for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and Other Backward Classes. Over time, various segments of society have supported and opposed the concept of reservation. Subsequently, the 103rd Amendment was enacted, which added a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the upper caste to the existing reservations. This move raised questions about its legitimacy, as it appeared to violate the 50% ceiling outlined in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India^[1]. However, the Supreme Court of India recently upheld the 10% reservation for the EWS Quota, asserting that it does not contradict the basic structure of the Constitution and that the 50% ceiling is not a rigid constraint and therefore allows for the addition of 10% reservation for the EWS Quota.

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India represents a prominent legal case in Indian constitutional law that centers on reserving seats in educational institutions and employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged segments of society. The issue was deliberated by a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India, composed of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S. Abdul Nazeer. It was brought before the Supreme Court following the Indian Parliament’s passage of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which introduced Articles 15(6) and 16(6) into the Constitution of India, allowing for a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections of society in educational institutions and employment opportunities.

Numerous petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment and reservation for economically weaker segments. The case raised many substantial legal and constitutional questions, such as whether the reservation violates the 50% ceiling limit on reservations established by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case and whether the reservation violates the fundamental structure of the Constitution. The judgment in this case is noteworthy in that it clarifies the constitutional validity of the reservation for economically weaker sections. It guides the implementation of the reservation system in India. The case underscores the significance of elevating economically more vulnerable segments of society and granting them equal education and employment opportunities while ensuring that existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs are maintained.

Facts of the Case

On January 9, 2019, the Indian Parliament passed the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act 2019, allowing the State to base choices about public employment and higher education solely on economic considerations. By adding 15(6) and 16(6), the Act changed Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. It received the President’s approval on January 12, 2019, and was published in the Gazette that day. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) announced the EWS entrance and employment requirements on January 31, 2019, following the 103rd Amendment. Since then, more than 20 petitions have been submitted contesting the 103rd Amendment’s legality.

The Amendment to Article 15(6) permits the State to establish particular policies, such as reservations in educational institutions, to benefit India’s people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Except for minority educational institutions safeguarded by Article 30(1), such restrictions may be imposed in any educational institution, including both aided and unaided private colleges. Additionally, under Article 16(6), The State can incorporate appointment reservations. These provisions will once again be restricted by a 10% cap in addition to the currently existing reservations.

Issues Raised

If economic factors might determine a class on their own and whether caste alone would establish a new class.
Whether or not Article 16(4) was an exception to Article 16(1) and included all reservation rights.
Does Article 16(4) allow the division of “Backward Classes” into Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes? It also permits the division of these classes among themselves depending on economic or other factors.
By increasing the 50% ceiling on reservations established by the Honourable Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (1992), does the 103rd Amendment violate the essential structure?
The provision of EWS Reservations may be denied to Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Socially and Economically Backward Classes.

Arguments

From Petitioner’s Side

The 103rd Amendment aims to extend reservations to a group of individuals who have not faced marginalization or discrimination before, thereby contradicting the fundamental principles of the reservation policy. The petitioners posited that the Indra Sawhney judgment and the Mandal Commission report had established that economic factors alone could not be the basis for granting reservations. Moreover, the aforementioned judgment had opined that the limit of 50% ceiling should only be modified in extraordinary circumstances. Since no extraordinary circumstances existed in this case, the 50% ceiling limit should remain unchanged. The 103rd Amendment would not eliminate the practice of reservation because even if the backward classes were brought up to the same level as the forward classes, poverty would persist, which is antithetical to the spirit and objective of reservation espoused by B.R. Ambedkar. The 103rd Amendment Act provides reservations solely for the socially and educationally backward general caste, excluding SC/ST and SEBC, thereby violating Article 14 (Right to equality) and the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the EWS reservation contradicts the country’s preambular vision of a caste-free society. It establishes a vertical reservation within a vertical reservation.

From the Respondents’ Side

The respondents’ viewpoints suggest that the reservation ethos differentiates between classes rather than castes. The recent amendment is based on the justification of granting unique benefits to the backward class that is economically deprived, thereby advancing the reservation’s justification and reinforcing the preambular vision of economic justice. The ultimate aim of the constitutional amendment is to establish a caste-free society, which aligns with the constitution’s authors’ objectives. The Attorney General of India, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, believes that the aforementioned change strengthens the constitution’s fundamental principles rather than weakens them. The respondents argue that to reinforce the Constitution’s preambular vision, it is crucial to read it dynamically. Articles 38^[2] and 46^[3] must be considered, which impose responsibility on the state to promote justice and eliminate social, political, and economic disparities. Classifying people solely based on economic factors is appropriate. In various judgments, including M.R. Balaji^[4], R Chitralekha v. State of Mysore^[5], and Vasanth Kumar^[6], the Supreme Court viewed poverty as a sign of backwardness while considering reservations. The respondents assert that the 10% ceiling restriction for EWS reservations does not infringe on the SCs, STs, OBCs, or SEBCs’ rights in any way since it is an addition to the existing 10% quota for the underprivileged group and does not work against their interests. SCs, STs, and non-creamy layer OBCs should be excluded because they already benefit from special provisions. Furthermore, it is argued that exceeding the 50% limit and violating the Equality Code are not inseparable issues, and exceeding the limit may occur in exceptional circumstances. The amendment aims to address the demands of each societal segment and promote the reservation ethos by extending the benefit of reservation to the EWS, thereby advancing substantive equality.

Judgement

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment to the Constitution through a 3:2 majority. The court evaluated the amendment concerning the basic structure of the constitution, discrimination due to the exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs in the 10% quota of EWS reservation, economic criterion as the sole criteria to provide reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the constitution, and the application of 10% EWS reservation on private unaided educational institutions.

Basic Structure of the Constitution

To comprehend and re-examine the doctrine of the basic structure of the constitution, the Supreme Court referred to various previous judgments, including Kesavananda Bharti v. the State of Kerala^[7]. It was determined that an amendment can violate the basic structure if it alters the Constitution’s form, character, and content. The court emphasized that the provisions for providing reservation to the weaker section by way of affirmative action do not form a part of the primary feature of the constitution, as it is simply enabling in nature. The intention of the drafters of the constitution was also quoted to justify such reasoning that reservation was never intended to be permanent in Indian society and was included solely as a measure to bring the weaker sections to the forefront of society and provide them equal opportunities. The court concluded that reservation is an enabling provision that allows the state to make arrangements for the upliftment of the weaker section of society and, therefore, does not carry the weightage of violating the basic structure. Furthermore, if the Parliament is making some provisions in furtherance of socio-economic justice to the society, such an initiative could not be termed as damaging the basic structure of the Constitution and hence settles this issue that the said amendment is not a violation of the basic structure of the constitution.

Table of Contents

Exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs from the ambit of 10% quota of EWS Reservation

The Court asserts that excluding other classes in the EWS Reservation does not abrogate the basic structure or fundamental rights of the weaker sections of society. The court’s reasoning is predicated on the notion that the SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs already benefit from affirmative action under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4), with a specific quota reserved in their favour. Additionally, the court emphasizes that the EWS Reservation does not infringe upon the benefits already afforded to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, as it does not encroach upon their quota allotment. The court further justifies its rationale by assuming that, even if the reservation could be deemed a violation of equality, it would only constitute a minor infringement of rights that is both justified and reasonable and, as such, would not amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of the weaker sections.

Economic criteria as the sole criterion of deciding on reservation

The Constitution of India endeavors to establish an “economic democracy” to attain social, economic, and political justice. The notion of economic justice advances the objective of distributive justice in Indian society as envisioned by the constitution’s architects. The court conducts a comprehensive interpretation of the Constitution to analyze the significance of economic justice. The court cites landmark judgments such as M. Nagraj v. Union of India# to emphasize that poverty indicates backwardness when considering reservation. Articles 38 and 46 of Part IV of the Constitution empower the state to make provisions for the economically disadvantaged section of society. The court additionally asserts that the constitution authorizes every affirmative action by the government to establish an egalitarian society and advance the socio-economic order, which is one of the constitution’s primary objectives. The court distinguishes between substantive and formalistic equality, inferring that the Constitution advocates equality in the truest sense and substance rather than merely as a formality. To provide equality in the truest sense, the court must aim to support all of society’s backward classes, including those struggling with economic constraints who require the state’s assistance in breaking the shackles and disabilities caused by economic factors. The court believes that limiting affirmative action to SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs would defeat the point and miss the substance of the concept of substantive justice as espoused in the constitution. Additionally, reservation cannot be granted solely on economic criteria under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4), but it must not prevent the state from making special provisions for economically backward classes that promote the constitution’s preamble. The court does not impose a blanket ban on reserving the economically weaker section. Instead, the court seeks to give the broadest interpretation to the term “other weaker sections” to realize the goal of distributive justice. The court also emphasizes the application of dynamic interpretation of the constitution to achieve the objectives espoused by its makers and uphold its relevance in letter and spirit.

Breach of 50% ceiling of reservation

The petitioners have contested the amendment on the premise that it infringes upon the 50% reservation limit, thereby violating the code of equality. This assertion was made about the judgement passed in the Indra Sawhney case. However, the court has adopted a position that cites Indra Sawhney to establish that the 50% reservation is not an absolute rule and can be surpassed in extraordinary situations. Furthermore, as the 103rd Amendment only enacts a provision enabling reservation to the economically weaker section, such an argument must be revised. The rationale behind the 50% ceiling limit is that reservation should not adversely affect another section of society. Bearing this in mind, if the state legislates to achieve substantive equality for any weaker section of society, it has the constitutional approval to fulfill the goal of equality stated in the preamble.

Application of EWS reservation in a private institution

The judiciary resolved the aforementioned inquiry through reference to the Pramati Trust case^[8], wherein it was determined that the modification in question shall be enforceable upon all privately-owned educational establishments, whether receiving financial assistance or not, according to the provisions outlined in Articles 29^[9] and 30^[10] of the Constitution.

Dissenting opinions of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat

The collective dissenting opinion of CJI UU Lalit and J Ravindra Bhat asserts that the 103rd Amendment violates the basic structure of the constitution. This is due to the exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs, which is contrary to the equality code that is fundamental to the nature of the constitution. Such exclusion perpetuates discrimination against historically disadvantaged and deprived communities. Furthermore, the 10% reservation prevents these communities from competing outside their allocated reservation quotas, an arbitrary practice. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that reservation based solely on economic criteria, as provided for in Article 15, is not controversial. Through dynamic interpretation, it is possible to include the economically weaker section as a part of the backward class. This group cannot benefit from education and become trapped in a cycle of poverty. However, dissenting judges contend that such a reservation is not allowed under Article 16 of the constitution, which emphasizes equality of opportunity in employment. The rationale behind this provision is to represent historically disadvantaged and weaker sections of society. Therefore, providing reservations solely on economic criteria runs counter to the ethos of the Constitution, which aims to provide equal representation to all classes of society.

Conclusion

Upon comprehending and scrutinizing the subtleties of the 103rd amendment to the Constitution, which introduces reservation for the economically weaker sections of society under Articles 15(6) and 16(6), one can infer that India is still plagued by pervasive poverty and necessitates potent measures to extend social and economic benefits to all strata of society. It is incumbent upon the state to ensure social mobility to ameliorate the gulf between the affluent and indigent, thereby engendering a homogeneous society. The Supreme Court has construed the amendment in a manner that accords with the preambular objective of conferring economic justice to all. Concomitantly, the dissenting opinion of CJI UU Lalit and J Ravindra Bhat signifies the historical essence of reservation as a form of reparation for those perennially discriminated against because of their caste. This judgement evinces both aspects of backwardness in society, whether social or economic. However, they must not be viewed in isolation, as they are inextricably interdependent and must be considered in tandem for the greater good of society.

References