SC Upholds 10% EWS Quota: Legal Analysis of Majority & Dissenting Views
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment upholding the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) has stirred significant debate. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced this quota, was challenged on grounds of violating the basic structure of the Constitution. The five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a split verdict (3:2), showcasing varying perspectives on this contentious issue.
Background of the 103rd Amendment
The 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, amended Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, enabling the state to make special provisions for EWS in education and public employment. This reservation applies to individuals outside the ambit of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
The petitioners argued that this amendment violated the equality principle under Article 14, altered the concept of reservations, and discriminated against historically marginalized communities.
The Majority View
Three judges (Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi, and J.B. Pardiwala) upheld the EWS quota, emphasizing its constitutional validity and societal necessity.
- Addressing Economic Backwardness
- Justice Maheshwari stated that economic weakness is a legitimate ground for affirmative action under the Constitution.
- He highlighted that the amendment does not erode the basic structure but rather advances social justice in a holistic sense.
- Justice Maheshwari stated that economic weakness is a legitimate ground for affirmative action under the Constitution.
- 50% Reservation Cap
- Justice Trivedi noted that the 50% cap on reservations (as laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992) is not inviolable.
- The cap applies to social and educational backwardness, not economic criteria.
- Justice Trivedi noted that the 50% cap on reservations (as laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992) is not inviolable.
- Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC
- The exclusion of SC/ST/OBC groups from EWS benefits was seen as reasonable, as these communities already have reservation benefits based on their distinct disadvantages.
- The exclusion of SC/ST/OBC groups from EWS benefits was seen as reasonable, as these communities already have reservation benefits based on their distinct disadvantages.
- Social Justice in a Broader Perspective
- Justice Pardiwala emphasized that reservations must have a time frame and be periodically reviewed to avoid becoming tools of perpetual privilege.
The Dissenting View
Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and U.U. Lalit dissented, expressing concerns over the amendment's impact on the Constitution's basic structure.
- Violation of Equality Principle
- Justice Bhat argued that reservations are meant to address systemic and historical disadvantages. Economic backwardness alone does not equate to these enduring injustices.
- Excluding SC/ST/OBC groups from EWS benefits was seen as discriminatory.
- Justice Bhat argued that reservations are meant to address systemic and historical disadvantages. Economic backwardness alone does not equate to these enduring injustices.
- 50% Cap on Reservations
- The dissenters reaffirmed the significance of the 50% ceiling, asserting that exceeding it undermines equality and merit.
- The dissenters reaffirmed the significance of the 50% ceiling, asserting that exceeding it undermines equality and merit.
- Risk of Inequity
- Justice Bhat warned that permitting economic criteria as the sole basis for reservations risks transforming them into a tool for wealth redistribution rather than addressing structural inequities.
Key Constitutional and Legal References
- Articles Amended
- Article 15(6): Enables special provisions for EWS in educational institutions.
- Article 16(6): Provides reservation in public employment for EWS.
- Judicial Precedents
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Affirmed the 50% reservation cap but recognized economic criteria as a factor for affirmative action.
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Affirmed the 50% reservation cap but recognized economic criteria as a factor for affirmative action.
- Doctrine of Basic Structure
- The basic structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision on the EWS quota balances competing interests of social justice and economic empowerment. While the majority verdict aligns with a broader interpretation of affirmative action, the dissent underscores the importance of safeguarding equality and meritocracy.
The judgment not only redefines the contours of reservation policies but also signals the need for a periodic review of such measures to align with evolving societal contexts.
This debate reiterates the Constitution’s dynamism in addressing new-age challenges while preserving its foundational values.
RELATED Blog
0 comments