Reservation in Government Jobs : Supreme Court Explains the Law on its Practical Application
In the context of reservation in public employment, the word ‘migration’ refers to a candidate claiming benefits or entitlements. The word is used in, at least, two scenarios. Scenario 2 occurs when there is a “Merit Induced Shift” where adjustment of a reserve category candidate in the unreserved category occurs based on his/her merit.
Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav [2025] GCtR 1895 (SC)
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."
Some Interesting Decisions
State of Maharashtra v Ravindranath Kautik Mohite [2016] GCtR 4405 (Bombay) : If delay is caused on account of non processing of the file then the Applicant is entitled to get interest on the delayed pension.
M/s.Ravindranath GE Medicate Associate Private Limited v M/s.Clean Coats Private Limited [2016] GCtR 4407 (Bombay) : Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006 clearly indicates that once the conciliation initiated under section 18(2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the dispute has to be resolved by arbitration and for such dispute resolution, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to such disputes as if the arbitration was pursuant to the arbitration agreement referred to in section 7(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Pradeep Sakharam Mayekar v State of Maharashtra [2016] GCtR 4408 (Bombay) :Duty to act in a fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and objective manner is a facet of the Rule of Law in a constitutional democracy like ours. The action that is arbitrary has no place in a polity governed by Rule of Law apart from being offensive to the equality clause guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
State of Maharashtra v Vijay Ghogre [2016] GCtR 4406 (Bombay) : There is no total bar for the State to use and utilise it's enabling power to provide Reservation to all the similarly placed class/group.
Kandarpa Pathak v Mono Kanta Baruah [2016] GCtR 3358 (Gauhati) : A bare reading of Order XIX Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 leaves no manner of doubt that the said provision can be invoked when the Court requires any particular fact or facts to be proved by affidavit and such evidence is tendered by way of affidavit, than the Court can order, at the instance of either party, the presence of the deponent for cross examination. What, therefore, follows is that in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Order XIX Rule 2, there must be a proceeding where any fact or facts are being sought to be proved by affidavit and in deference to the said purpose, evidence in given by either party, by affidavit.
Mohammad Munaf Mohammad Hanif Bedre v State of Maharashtra [2016] GCtR 4409 (Bombay) : Recourse to affinity test can be taken if the other documentary evidence, which was conclusive in nature was not available.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.
Scope of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Answered in a recent Judgment passed in July 2026 S.9 of Arbitration and Concil...