Precedents Cited

The judgment referred to several key precedents and reports that influenced the Court’s decision:

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Established the principle of reservations not exceeding 50% and laid down guidelines for affirmative action.
• Shantistar Builders v. Narayan K. Totame (1990): Recognized the 'means test' for defining weaker sections based on economic criteria.
• Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984): Clarified the application of reservation policies to medical and dental courses.
• BK Pavithra v. Union of India (2019): Outlined the extent of judicial review over reservation policies.

Additionally, the judgment heavily relied on reports from the Major Sinho Commission and the Pandey Committee, which provided empirical and policy-based insights into the determination of EWS criteria.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning encompassed both constitutional mandates and practical considerations:

• Constitutional Framework: The 103rd Constitutional Amendment (Articles 15(6) and 16(6)) empowered the state to provide reservations for EWS based on economic criteria. The Court emphasized that the criteria must align with these constitutional provisions.
• Criteria Justification: The Rs. 8 lakhs income limit was scrutinized for its basis and applicability across diverse economic landscapes of India. The Court required the Union Government to elucidate the rationale behind selecting this threshold.
• Precedent Consistency: The Court maintained consistency with past rulings, ensuring that new reservation measures do not contravene established legal standards.
• Practical Implications: Recognizing the ongoing counseling process and the pandemic's impact, the Court opted against disrupting the admission process by making abrupt changes to the reservation criteria.

Impact

The judgment has several implications for future cases and the broader legal landscape of affirmative action in India:

• Temporary Validation: By allowing the continuation of EWS reservations for the current academic year, the Court ensured that the admission process remained unaffected, preventing administrative chaos.
• Criteria Reevaluation: The Court's directive for detailed affidavits and further scrutiny of the EWS criteria opens the pathway for potential revisions, ensuring that reservations remain equitable and justifiable.
• Policy Guidance: The reliance on empirical data and committee recommendations underscores the importance of evidence-based policy-making in reservation measures.
• Judicial Restraint: The Court demonstrated a balanced approach, intervening only when there is prima facie evidence of arbitrariness, thereby respecting the state’s prerogative in policy formulation.

Economically Weaker Section (EWS)

The EWS category is a classification under the Indian Constitution that allows for reservations in education and employment for individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who do not fall under the traditional categories like SC, ST, or OBC.

Creamy Layer

The 'creamy layer' refers to members of the OBC community who are socially and economically advanced, thereby making them ineligible for reservation benefits. It ensures that the benefits of reservations reach the genuinely backward individuals.

AIQ Seats

All India Quota (AIQ) seats are a portion of admission seats in centrally funded institutions that are reserved for students from other states, ensuring a diverse student body across the nation.

Major Sinho Commission

A commission established in 2005 to examine the feasibility and criteria for implementing EWS reservations. Its report provided foundational guidelines that informed government policies.

Pandey Committee

A committee constituted by the Union Government to review and recommend revisions to the EWS criteria. Its recommendations played a crucial role in the Court's consideration of the EWS criteria's validity.