HPAS 2021 GS2 Question 3

HPAS 2021 Mains GS-2 Question 3

Describe the Supreme Court’s judgement on the 103rd Constitutional amendment.

Solution:

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, which introduced a 10% reservation for **Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)** in jobs and admissions, was challenged in the landmark case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022). In a 3:2 majority verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the amendment.

1. Key Findings of the Judgement

• Economic Criteria as Basis: The court ruled that reservation solely on economic criteria does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution. It held that the State is empowered to take affirmative action for the upliftment of the poor.
• Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC: The majority held that excluding those already covered under Article 15(4) and 16(4) is valid because they already enjoy the benefits of reservation. It prevents a “double benefit” scenario.
• The 50% Ceiling: The court clarified that the 50% limit established in the Indra Sawhney (1992) case is not “inflexible.” This limit applies to caste-based reservations and does not strictly bar economic reservations.

2. Significance of the Verdict

The judgement marks a departure from the traditional view that reservation is only a tool for social and educational backwardness. It recognizes poverty as an independent marker of disadvantage that the State must address under its directive principles.

3. The Dissenting View

Two judges (including the then CJI) dissented, arguing that the exclusion of socially backward classes from EWS reservation violates the Equality Code. They contended that “economic criteria” should be inclusive of all poor, regardless of caste.

“Reservation is not just for the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, but also for the economically weaker sections.” — Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Concise Model Answer (150-Word Limit)

In the Janhit Abhiyan case (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Amendment by a 3:2 majority. The court ruled that providing 10% EWS reservation does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Key aspects of the judgement include:

1. Validity of Economic Criteria: Recognized poverty as a legitimate basis for affirmative action under the State’s duty to ensure social justice.
2. Breaching the 50% Cap: Held that the 50% ceiling is not an absolute rule and applies primarily to caste-based reservations, thus allowing the additional 10% EWS quota.
3. Valid Exclusion: Approved the exclusion of SC/ST/OBCs from EWS benefits, noting they are already beneficiaries of separate compensatory discrimination.

The verdict effectively shifts the reservation discourse from solely “social identity” to include “economic deprivation,” empowering the State to assist poor citizens in the general category.