EWS Reservation Does Not Carry a Right to Age/Attempt Relaxation: Judicial Deference to Executive Policy Choices
Introduction
In ANISH ARUN & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Delhi High Court, Division Bench; decided on
16-04-2026, Citation Code: 2026 DHC 3135-DB), petitioners belonging to the
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) challenged the Central Government’s policy framework that grants
10% EWS reservation in direct recruitment but does not grant EWS candidates
upper-age relaxation or relaxation in number of attempts—benefits available to
SC/ST/OBC candidates in examinations such as the Civil Services Examination.
The petition sought (i) striking down the DoPT OM dated 31.01.2019 and DoPT FAQs dated
19.09.2022 (to the extent they deny age/attempt relaxation to EWS), (ii) striking down the
C.S.E. 2024 Notification to the extent it does not provide such relaxations, and (iii) a mandamus
directing parity with OBC relaxations.
The core issues were: (a) whether denial of age/attempt relaxation to EWS is arbitrary or violates
Articles 14 and 16(1); (b) whether EWS candidates can claim parity with SC/ST/OBC in
“ancillary” concessions; and (c) the scope of judicial review over such recruitment policy choices.
Summary of the Judgment
-
The Court held that the decision to not extend age/attempt relaxation to EWS candidates is a
policy choice within the Executive/Legislature domain and is not unconstitutional merely because
SC/ST/OBC enjoy such relaxations.
-
The Court emphasized that EWS (economic disadvantage) is constitutionally and conceptually
distinct from SC/ST/OBC (structural social and educational backwardness); therefore, EWS cannot
demand automatic parity in ancillary benefits.
-
The Court found no manifest arbitrariness or constitutional violation in the OM/FAQs/notifications.
-
The Court also noted that the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024 (which set attempts/age and
do not provide EWS relaxation) were not challenged; hence no right to relaxation could be
judicially conferred.
-
The writ petition was dismissed.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The Division Bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s settled articulation of the
limited scope of judicial review in policy matters: courts do not assess “correctness/suitability”
of a policy; they examine legality—i.e., whether the policy violates fundamental rights,
constitutional/statutory provisions, or is manifestly arbitrary. The judgment’s quotation also
catalogues the leading cases reinforcing deference to executive policy choices, namely:
Asif Hameed v. State of J&K [1989 Supp (2) SCC 364],
Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 223],
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State Of Karnataka [(1996) 10 SCC 304],
BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 333],
State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash [(2005) 13 SCC 495 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1225], and
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) v. State of A.P. [(2006) 4 SCC 162].
Influence on outcome: This line of authority provided the doctrinal foundation for the Court’s
refusal to “add” age/attempt relaxation by judicial direction, treating it as an impermissible
substitution of policy.
2) State of Punjab v. Ram LubhayaBagga : (1998) 4 SCC 117
This case was invoked to underscore that courts ordinarily do not weigh the “pros and cons” or test the degree of
beneficial effect of a policy; government decisions are based on resources, expertise, and multiple constraints.
Influence on outcome: The Court used it to reinforce that recruitment relaxations (age/attempts)
involve administrative design and resource balancing—matters not suited to judicial recalibration absent
constitutional infirmity.
This precedent was central to the Court’s reasoning on category parity. There, the Supreme Court
held that the Constitution recognizes distinctions among reserved categories; merely because some concessions are
given to SC/ST and not to OBC, it does not become discriminatory. The Supreme Court also accepted the Government’s
reliance on participation/representation data to decide whether relaxation is needed.
Influence on outcome: The Delhi High Court analogized: if OBC could not claim automatic parity with
SC/ST in age relaxation, EWS likewise cannot claim automatic parity with SC/ST/OBC—especially given EWS’s separate
constitutional basis (Article 16(6)) and different nature of disadvantage.
The Court cited this to reiterate that while the “data” forming the basis of satisfaction may be examined for
relevance, the policy decision to provide reservation (and by extension the manner/extent of
implementing it) is generally beyond judicial review.
Influence on outcome: It supported judicial restraint in interfering with how the State structures
EWS benefits (reservation without ancillary relaxations).
The petitioners relied on Janhit Abhiyan to argue that economic disadvantage warrants significant
affirmative action and that reservation should include meaningful enabling measures such as age/attempt relaxation.
Influence on outcome: The Court did not treat Janhit Abhiyan as creating a constitutional
mandate that EWS must receive the same ancillary concessions as SC/ST/OBC. Instead, the Court kept the question in
the realm of executive/legislative policy design.
The petitioners cited this for the proposition that governance must be just, equitable, and impartial.
Influence on outcome: The Court did not find the impugned scheme lacking in fairness so as to meet
the high threshold of arbitrariness/constitutional invalidity; it treated the matter as a permissible
classification/policy choice.
7) Prior High Court decisions: Harish Indoriya v. Union of India and Anr. and Aaditya Narayan Pandey v. Union Of India and Ors.
The respondents relied on these decisions where similar reliefs sought by EWS candidates had been rejected, with
courts holding that the grant of age/attempt relaxation is a policy matter not ordinarily subject to judicial
mandamus.
Influence on outcome: While not binding like Supreme Court precedent, these decisions reinforced
judicial consistency and supported the Court’s conclusion that the issue is “concluded” against such claims absent
a demonstrable constitutional violation.
Legal Reasoning
A) Policy domain and separation of powers
The Court framed the dispute as an attempt to judicially rewrite the recruitment policy by adding relaxations for
EWS candidates. It held that under Article 226, courts cannot function as policy-makers; they can only strike down
policies that are unconstitutional, violate statutory provisions, or are manifestly arbitrary.
B) Constitutional architecture: EWS as a distinct category under Article 16(6)
The Court located EWS within the 103rd Constitutional Amendment inserting Articles 15(6) and 16(6). It emphasized
that Article 16(6) is expressly for EWS “other than the classes mentioned in clause (4),” signaling
a constitutionally intended separation from SC/ST/OBC.
Relying on the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Bill,
2019, the Court described EWS as aimed at addressing exclusion from education/employment due to
financial incapacity, not caste-based oppression.
C) Differentiated disadvantage justifies differentiated ancillary benefits
The Court’s key substantive move was distinguishing the character of disadvantage:
-
SC/ST/OBC: “deep and long-standing social and educational backwardness,” structural, enduring,
and caste-based; caste is fixed by birth and may carry long-lasting stigma.
-
EWS: economic deprivation, which the Court characterized as “fluid” and changeable over time.
From this, the Court concluded that it cannot be assumed that both sets of disadvantages require identical
“ancillary concessions” such as age/attempt relaxation. Therefore, denial of parity does not, by itself, establish
discrimination.
D) Central OBC list vs State OBC list; Article 342A
Addressing the argument that State-OBC (not Central-OBC) individuals who also qualify as EWS suffer a double
disadvantage, the Court held that once a caste/community is not recognized in the Central List for OBC purposes,
it cannot claim Central-OBC benefits (including ancillary concessions). The Court noted the distinct nature of
State and Central lists under Article 342A and reaffirmed that non-inclusion in the Central list defeats a claim to
Central-OBC concessions.
E) No parity with Jammu & Kashmir / other States
The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on certain States/UTs (including Jammu & Kashmir) granting EWS age
relaxation. It held that there is no enforceable parity between service conditions framed by the Union and those
framed by States/UTs; each recruiting authority may set its own criteria.
F) Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024 not challenged
The Court separately noted that the CSE Notification, 2024 follows the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024,
which prescribe age and attempts and do not provide EWS relaxation. Since the Rules were not challenged, and since
there is no existing policy granting EWS relaxations, no mandamus could compel the grant of such benefits as a
matter of right.
Impact
-
Clarifies limits of EWS parity claims: The judgment reinforces that EWS reservation under
Article 16(6) does not automatically import the full bundle of relaxations historically associated with
SC/ST/OBC policies.
-
Reinforces “ancillary concessions” as policy space: Age/attempt relaxations are treated as
implementational choices tied to administrative assessments (e.g., application-to-vacancy ratios), not as
constitutional entitlements.
-
Litigation strategy signal: Future challenges seeking EWS relaxations may need to (i) directly
challenge the underlying statutory/rule framework (where applicable), and (ii) meet the high threshold of
“manifest arbitrariness” with a strong evidentiary record showing irrationality, not mere desirability.
-
Federal differentiation preserved: States/UTs extending EWS relaxations will not, without more,
compel the Union to replicate them—protecting autonomy in service-rule design.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- Judicial review in policy matters
-
Courts can strike down a policy if it breaches the Constitution/law or is “manifestly arbitrary,” but they do not
replace the Government’s choice with what the court considers better policy.
- Manifest arbitrariness
-
A high threshold of irrationality—when a policy is so unreasonable or unsupported by logic that it cannot be
justified as a lawful governmental choice.
- “Enabling provision” (Articles 16(4) and 16(6))
-
These clauses permit the State to provide reservation; they do not, by themselves, compel a specific set of
relaxations (such as age/attempts) unless the law/policy so provides.
- Ancillary concessions
-
Additional supportive measures (like age relaxation, more attempts, fee concessions) that may accompany
reservation, but are not automatically guaranteed for every reserved category.
- Central OBC list vs State OBC list (Article 342A context)
-
A community may be recognized as OBC by a State but not by the Union for Central services; Central-service OBC
benefits depend on Central recognition.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench reaffirmed a clear rule: EWS reservation does not confer a judicially
enforceable right to age/attempt relaxation equivalent to SC/ST/OBC. The Court grounded this in (i) the
separation of powers and the narrow scope of judicial review over policy, (ii) the constitutional distinction
between Article 16(6) EWS and Article 16(4) backward classes, and (iii) the differing nature of disadvantages
targeted by these categories. Absent a demonstrated constitutional violation or manifest arbitrariness—and
particularly where the governing recruitment rules themselves are not challenged—courts will not compel the State
to extend such relaxations by mandamus.