Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India

Last updated
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
CourtSupreme Court of India
DecidedNovember 7, 2022.
Case opinions
Upheld the legality of the EWS Reservation.

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 55 OF 2019), also known as the EWS Reservation case, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India.

Contents

Background

On January 9, 2019, the Parliament introduced amendments to Articles 15 and Aritcle 16 of the Constitution India, incorporating clauses 15(6) and 16(6) to extend reservation in educational institutions and employment opportunities to economically weaker sections of society. This amendment, known as the One Hundred and Third (103rd) Constitutional Amendment, has been a subject of controversy since its enactment. It empowered the state to introduce specific provisions for economically disadvantaged sections in education and employment, thus expanding the scope of reservations.

Following the enactment of the One Hundred and Third Amendment Act of 2019, several writ petitions were filed, seeking to declare the amendment unconstitutional and in violation of the basic structure concept. By adding Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution, the state acquired the authority to impose specific restrictions on reservations for economically weaker sections, with a maximum of 10%. The Superem court compiled all the writ under the case Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India.

Primary issue in the case

  1. The sole reliance on economic criteria for determining reservations is deemed to be in violation of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. [1]
  2. The exclusion of socially and educationally backward groups (SEBCs), including Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), from the provisions for economically weaker sections is perceived as discriminatory and contradictory to the core principles of the Constitution. [1]
  3. Denying reservation benefits to classes mentioned in Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) based on economic considerations is argued to be in violation of the Equality Code and the basic structure theory. [1]

Decision

The Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment delivered on November 7, 2022, upheld the legality of the One Hundred and Third Amendment Act of 2019 with a majority decision of 3:2 [2]

Majority Judgement

Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice J B Pardiwala

The court observed that the reservation for the EWS is a valid classification and does not infringe upon the existing reservations for the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs). It was noted that the EWS category is based on economic backwardness and not on caste or social backwardness, which are the criteria for existing reservations. [3]

The court further held that the reservation for the EWS is a legitimate means to achieve the goal of providing equal opportunities and social justice to all sections of society. It recognized that economic inequality and poverty can also be a form of social disadvantage and that the reservation for the EWS is a step towards addressing this aspect of inequality. [4]

Minority Judgement

Former Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat,

CJI UU Lalit and J. Ravindra Bhat dissented from the majority opinion and held that the 103rd amendment to the constitution was violative of the basic structure on two grounds. First, they argued that the exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs from the 10% quota of EWS reservation was against the equality code and discriminated against the historically disadvantaged and deprived communities. [5] Second, they argued that reservation under Article 16 could not be based solely on economic criteria, as it would go against the purpose of providing representation to the socially and educationally backward classes. [6]

Related Research Articles

The Other Backward Class (OBC) is a collective term used by the Government of India to classify castes that are educationally or socially backward. It is one of several official classifications of the population of India, along with general castes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs and STs). The OBCs were found to comprise 52% of the country's population by the Mandal Commission report of 1980 and were determined to be 41% in 2006 when the National Sample Survey Organisation took place. There is substantial debate over the exact number of OBCs in India; it is generally estimated to be sizable, but many believe that it is higher than the figures quoted by either the Mandal Commission or the National Sample Survey.

Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative and Executive Branches of government and in educational institutions in India is not a system of affirmative action as commonly understood. It is provided in the Constitution as a continuity of the Reservation provisions in the Government of India Act 1935. This Act incorporated the reservation provisions based on the amendments in the McDonald or Communal Award following the Poona Pact. Per this amendment it was stipulated that the SCs and STs would be entitled to Reserved seats as above in exchange for surrendering their right to Separate Electorates. Reservations for SCs and STs are therefore a part of the Social Contract between various interest groups at the time of the formation of the nation state called India. The Contract was hammered out by the various interest groups of India in three Round Table Conferences in 1931-32. It provided all interest groups with representation in the legislature through the mechanism of Separate Electorates (SE). However, as a result of intense negotiations between the Caste Hindus and Depressed Classes it was decided that the DC would surrender their right to SE in exchange for Reservation of seats in the legislative and executive branches of government and in educational institutions. Accordingly there are provisions in the Indian Constitution, which bind the Union Government and the States and Territories of India to set reserved quotas or seats, at particular percentages in the Executive branch and in Educational Institutions. On the other hand reservation for OBCs and all other disadvantaged groups are based on those provisions of the Constitution which require the state and central governments to provide for affirmative action type quotas for "socially and educationally backward classes. ."


The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) practices affirmative action and offers reservation to the "backward and weaker sections" of the society that includes SC/ST/OBC-NCL/EWS/PWD/Girl candidates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Indian anti-reservation protests</span> Protest in India against reservation for OBCs

The 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests were a series of protests that took place in India in 2006 in opposition to the decision of the Union Government of India, led by the Indian National Congress-headed multiparty coalition United Progressive Alliance, to implement reservations for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central and private institutes of higher education. These protests were one of the two major protests against the Indian reservation system, the other one being the 1990 anti-Mandal protests.

Forward caste is a term used in India to denote castes which are not listed in SC, ST or OBC reservation lists. They are on average considered ahead of other castes economically and educationally. They account for about 30.8% of the population based on Schedule 10 of available data from the National Sample Survey Organisation 55th (1999–2000) and National Sample Survey Organisation 61st Rounds (2004–05) Round Survey.

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India is an Indian public interest litigation case challenging the conclusion of the Mandal Commission that about 52% of the total population of India belonged to Other Backward Classes classification. The National Sample Survey Organisation had estimated the OBC segment to be 42 per cent.

Creamy layer is a term used in Indian politics to refer to some members of a backward class who are highly advanced socially as well as economically and educationally. They constitute the forward section of that particular backward class – as forward as any other forward class member. They are not eligible for government-sponsored educational and professional benefit programs. The term was introduced by the Sattanathan Commission in 1971, which directed that the "creamy layer" should be excluded from the reservations (quotas) of civil posts. It was also identified later by Justice Ram Nandan Committee in 1993.

National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities, also called Ranganath Misra Commission, was constituted by Government of India on 29 October 2004 to look into various issues related to Linguistic and Religious minorities in India. It was chaired by former Chief Justice of India Justice Ranganath Misra, member of Rajya Sabha from 1998 to 2004. The commission submitted the report to the Government on 21 May 2007.

Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu is a system of affirmative action that provides historically disadvantaged groups representation in education and employment. Reservations in the state rose from 41 percent in 1954 to 69 percent in 1990.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uday Umesh Lalit</span> 49th Chief Justice of India

Uday Umesh Lalit is an Indian lawyer and former Supreme Court Judge, who served as the 49th Chief Justice of India. Previously, he has served as a judge of Supreme Court of India. Prior to his elevation as a judge, he practised as a senior counsel at the Supreme Court. Justice Lalit is one of the six senior counsels who have been directly elevated to the Supreme Court. He is currently ‘Distinguished Visiting Professor’ at Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay and Distinguished Visiting Professor at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dinesh Maheshwari</span> Indian judge (born 1958)

Dinesh Maheshwari is a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India. He is a former Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court & High Court of Meghalaya. He took the oath as a Judge of Rajasthan High Court on 2 September 2004. He was transferred to the Allahabad High Court and remained senior Judge at the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court from 2 March 2015. He took oath as Chief Justice of the High Court of Meghalaya on 24 February 2016. On transfer to Karnataka, Justice Maheshwari took oath as 30th Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka on 12 February 2018. He took oath as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 18 January 2019.

Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in India is a subcategory of people having an annual family income less than ₹8 lakh (US$10,000) and who do not belong to any category such as SC/ST/OBC across India, nor to MBC in Tamil Nadu. A candidate who does not fall under SC/ST/OBC and fulfils the EWS economic criteria are to be part of the EWS category.

Youth For Equality is an Indian organisation against caste-based policies and reservations, i.e. affirmative action. It was founded by students in a number of Indian universities in 2006. It organises demonstrations and legal challenges against caste-based policies.

The One Hundred and Third Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as the Constitution Act, 2019, introduces 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society for admission to Central Government-run educational institutions and private educational institutions, and for employment in Central Government jobs. The Amendment does not make such reservations mandatory in State Government-run educational institutions or State Government jobs. However, some states have chosen to implement the 10% reservation for economically weaker sections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">One Hundred and Second Amendment of the Constitution of India</span>

The One Hundred and Second Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as the Constitution Act, 2018, granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

Kaleeswaram Raj is an Indian lawyer practising in the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Kerala. He has successfully argued for decriminalisation of the offence of adultery in India.

Article 15 of the Constitution of India forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth. It applies Article 14's general principle of equality in specific situations by forbidding classifications made on protected grounds. While prohibiting discrimination based on prejudice, the Article is also the central issue in a large body of judicial decisions, public debate, and legislation revolving around affirmative action, reservations, and quotas. As of the 103rd Amendment of the Constitution of India, Article 15.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">One Hundred and Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Amendment of 2021

The One Hundred and Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of India- officially known as The Constitution Act, 2021- restored the power of State governments to recognise socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs). SEBCs, which includes the groups commonly known as Other Backward Classes (OBCs), are communities for which the State can provide 'special provisions' or affirmative action in India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. B. Pardiwala</span> Indian judge (born 1965)

Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala is a judge of the Supreme Court of India since May 2022. He is a former judge of the Gujarat High Court.

Reservation policy in Bihar is a system of affirmative action that provides historically disadvantaged groups representation in education and employment. Reservations in the state rose from 60 percent in 2021 to 75 percent in 2023.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India : Tracing the History of 103rd Constitutional Amendment". Prime Legal. 2022-11-13. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
  2. ↑ "'Does not violate basic structure of Constitution': Supreme Court upholds 10% EWS quota in 3-2 verdict". The Indian Express. 2022-11-07. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
  3. ↑ KM, Ashok (2022-11-07). ""Basic Structure Not Violated" : Supreme Court Upholds Application Of EWS Quota To Private Unaided Educational Institutions". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
  4. ↑ "EWS Reservation". Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
  5. ↑ LawBhoomi (2022-12-10). "Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India, 2022: Case comment". LawBhoomi. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
  6. ↑ KM, Ashok (2022-11-08). "[EWS Quota] Why Supreme Court's Minority Judgment Did Not Read Down 103rd Constitutional Amendment ?". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.