EWS Reservation and Constitutional Validity
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India [2022] GCtR 1568 (SC) has answered the issue. Janhit Abhiyan is relevant for those appearing for AOR Examination schedule in the month of June 2025.
The issue was about Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 which provided for reservation for EWS. Through this Amendment, Article 15 was amended and A.15 (6) was added. A.16 was also amended ; previously, Article 16 contained only 5 clauses and by this Amendment Act, 2019, A.16 (6) was added.
4 separate judgments were given.
It was a 5-Judges' Bench Decision.
Hon'ble J. Bela Trivedi wrote the opinion.
Hon'ble J. Dinesh Maheshwari wrote the opinion and wrote that reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India. Reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent. in addition to the existing reservations does not result in violation of any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India on account of breach of the ceiling limit of fifty per cent. because, that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. He wrote "even if it be assumed that the existing provisions concerning reservation are correlated with ‘representation’, such a correlation would only remain confined to the classes availing benefit under Article 16(4); and it cannot be said that for any other deserving section or class reservation could be provided only for the purpose of representation. As repeatedly noticed, the real and substantive equality takes myriad shapes, depending on the requirements."
"Parliament, whilst enacting amendments to the Constitution, exercises constituent power, as distinguished from ordinary legislative power. Same as that the Parliament is not at liberty to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court is also not at liberty to declare constitutional amendments void because of their perceived injustice or impolicy or where they appear to the Court to be violating fundamental principles of governance, unless such principles are placed beyond legislative encroachment by the Constitution itself.
Hon'ble J. J.B. Pardiwala held the Amendment Act to be valid.
Hon'ble J. S. Ravindra Bhat wrote for himself and Hon'ble J. U.U. Lalit that "introducing the economic basis for reservation – as a new criterion, is permissible. Yet, the “othering” of socially and educationally disadvantaged classes – including SCs/ STs/ OBCs by excluding them from this new reservation on the ground that they enjoy pre-existing benefits, is to heap fresh injustice based on past disability." "Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 which inserted clause (6) in Article 15 and clause (6) in Article 16, respectively, are unconstitutional and void on the ground that they are violative of the basic structure of the Constitution."