Enhancing Affirmative Action: Supreme Court Refers EWS Reservation Amendment to Constitution Bench

Introduction

The landmark case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India And Others (2020 INSC 475) addresses the constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019. This amendment introduced significant changes to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, enabling reservations for economically weaker sections (EWS) in educational institutions and public employment. The petitioner, Janhit Abhiyan, alongside other stakeholders, challenged the amendment on grounds that it violates the basic structure of the Constitution, exceeds the permissible quota for affirmative action, and infringes upon fundamental rights enshrined under Article 19(1)(g).

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, in a detailed judgment dated August 5, 2020, deliberated on multiple writ petitions challenging the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. The primary contention was that the amendment alters the Constitution's basic structure by introducing reservations based solely on economic criteria, potentially exceeding the established 50% ceiling for affirmative action. The petitioners argued that such modifications undermine the principle of equality and contravene precedents like the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court concluded that the issues raised indeed involve substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court decided to refer the matters to a Constitution Bench comprising five judges, thereby deferring a substantive decision on the validity of the amendment in this judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment prominently references pivotal cases that have shaped India's affirmative action policies:

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217): Also known as the Mandal Commission case, it upheld reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBC) but capped overall reservations at 50%, barring certain exceptions.
• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212: Emphasized the "basic structure" doctrine, asserting that constitutional amendments cannot alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
• Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1: Validated economic criteria as a basis for affirmative action, allowing reservations for economically disadvantaged individuals regardless of caste.
• Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1: Upheld reservations based on economic criteria under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
• Voice (Consumer Care) Council v. State Of Tamil Nadu (1996) 11 SCC 740: Addressed the legality of reservations exceeding 50%, underscoring the Court's stance on quota limits.

These cases collectively underscore the Court's nuanced approach to reservations, balancing affirmative action's objectives with constitutional safeguards.

Legal Reasoning

The crux of the Court's reasoning hinges on whether the 103rd Amendment disrupts the Constitution's basic structure. The petitioners argued that introducing economic criteria alone for reservations dilutes the principle of social equality, as envisioned in earlier judgments like Indra Sawhney. They contended that economic backwardness does not equate to social or educational disadvantage, thereby questioning the amendment's foundational premise.

Conversely, the Union of India defended the amendment by highlighting the substantial portion of the population that remains economically disadvantaged despite existing reservations. Citing Ashoka Kumar Thakur and Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan, the Union argued that economic criteria provide a pragmatic approach to inclusivity, addressing gaps not covered by caste-based reservations.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging these arguments, focused on procedural correctness, determining that the legal questions posed necessitate a more comprehensive examination by a larger bench. This decision aligns with the Court's commitment to preserving the Constitution's integrity while adapting to evolving socio-economic dynamics.

Impact

The Court's decision to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench indicates the complexity and significance of the issues at hand. A five-judge bench will scrutinize the amendment's alignment with constitutional principles, particularly the basic structure doctrine and the established limits on reservations.

Should the Constitution Bench uphold the amendment, it would cement the legal foundation for economic reservations, potentially increasing the overall quota beyond the 50% ceiling under exceptional circumstances. This could pave the way for more inclusive policies targeting economic disparities, irrespective of caste or social classifications.

Conversely, if the Bench invalidates the amendment, it would reinforce the sanctity of the 50% reservation cap and necessitate a reevaluation of alternative methods to address economic inequalities within the framework of existing affirmative action policies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India judgment marks a critical juncture in India's affirmative action jurisprudence. By determining the necessity of a Constitution Bench, the Supreme Court underscores the profound legal implications surrounding economic reservations. The forthcoming deliberations by the five-judge bench will not only clarify the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment but also potentially redefine the parameters of affirmative action in India. This case epitomizes the ongoing legal and societal discourse on balancing equality, justice, and the evolving needs of a diverse populace.