Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India
| Citation | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 OF 2019 |
| Date of Judgment | 7th November 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Writ Petition |
| Petitioner | Janhit Abhiyan |
| Respondent | Union of India |
| Bench | Justice Uday Umesh Lalit (CJI), Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice J. B. Pardiwala |
| Referred Law | Constitution |
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The issue of reservations has long been divisive in the country. It was established with the goal of enabling disadvantaged individuals in society to take advantage of opportunities that they had previously been denied due to their social standing or societal oppression. Reservation legislation for the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and Other Backward Classes were made possible by the First Amendment, which also granted the government the power to do so. Reservations have both supporters and detractors over time. Then the 103rd Amendment was passed, increasing the caste’s current reservations by 10% to include the economically disadvantaged parts of the upper caste (henceforth referred to as EWS). This reservation’s constitutionality has been questioned because it exceeds the 50% level specified in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.
The One Hundred and Third (103rd) Amendment to the Indian Constitution, inserted on January 9th, 2019, allowed the state to extend reservations in educational institutions and employment opportunities for economically weaker sections. However, the amendment has been criticized for violating the basic structure concept and allowing restrictions on reservations for economically weaker members. The reservation is merely facilitating rather than obligatory. The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act of 2019 led to writ petitions and appeals, challenging
its unconstitutionality and violation of basic structure. Articles 15(6) and 16(6) allowed restrictions on reservations for economically weaker class members, with a maximum of 10% maximum.
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 employment possibilities. The legitimacy of the 103rd Amendment to the Constitution has been contested in as many as 20 petitions.
The Supreme Court issued a 3:2 split decision on the case through a 5-judge constitutional bench. The constitutionality and basic structural doctrine questions were at the centre of the dispute. This article will provide a summary of the case, some key facts, the Supreme Court’s reasoning for its decision, the arguments advanced by both sides and why this decision is significant for revising India’s overall definition of reservation.
Keywords: Indian Constitution, writ petition, 103rd amendment, reservation policy, state, SC, ST, SEBC, EWS reservation.
ISSUES
1. Economic factors cannot be the only ones used to decide whether to provide a reserve to a certain group of people, since doing so violates the constitution’s fundamental principles. 2. Inexplicably discriminatory in character, the exclusion of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), i.e., SCs, STs, and OBCs, from these specific provisions for EWS contradicts the fundamental principles of the constitution.
3. Because it violates the Equality Code and the 50% cap on reservations, the 10% upper limit of reservations for EWS directly contravenes the philosophy and legal doctrine of reservations as espoused by the constitution’s authors. This, in turn, violates the Constitution’s fundamental provisions.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER
➢ The Constitution’s Act of 2019 breaks the 50% reservation cap, allowing a 10% reservation. Petitioners argue it violates the precedent established in Indra Sawhney and cannot be violated unless protected by the Constitution’s 9th Schedule.
➢ The reservation policy in the Constitution aims to create reservations for marginalized groups, but the petitioners’ attorneys argued it violates fundamental principles by including those who have never experienced social or educational disadvantage, resulting in fraud on the Constitution.
➢ Petitioners’ Counsels argue that the Legislature erred in recognizing socially or educationally backwards as a cause for establishing reservation, citing historic decisions like Indra Sawhney and M. R. Balaji.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
➢ The Attorney General argued that the 10% reservation does not impact the 50% cap on SEBC, as they already benefit from reservation advantages in government, public services, and legislative branches. The reservation is an addition to an existing reservation for economically weaker groups, not a violation of the Equality Code.
➢ The respondents’ counsel argues that the Amendment Act does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, and the current amendment, providing economic fairness through the EWS Reservation, does not violate these fundamental principles.
➢ The right of EWS is derived from Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring a “dignified life.” The respondent’s attorney, Vibha Dutta Makhija, believes poverty undermines respect and calls for the government to end poverty for dignity.
JUDGMENT
The Amendment Act’s validity was upheld by the five-judge panel of the Honourable Supreme Court in a unanimous decision. Hon. Justices Bela M. Trivedi, J. B. Pardiwala, and Dinesh Maheshwari declared that the Amendment Act cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution’s essential principles and that the petitions challenging it should be dismissed. A reservation for EWS members that is only based on income inequality does not go against the fundamental framework and does not restrict the rights of SEBC members.
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 rich 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 justice for all. In addition, the CJI UU Lalit and J Ravindra Bhat’s opposing opinion highlights the historical significance of reservation as restitution for people who were invariably discriminated against because of their caste.
This article is written by Tripura Sriya Pilladi a student of ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad, 6th semester, an Intern under Legal Vidhya.
