Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
The Constitution Bench of former Chief Justice UU Lalit, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, JB Pardiwala, upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which provides for 10% reservation in appointments to State posts and admissions to educational institutions to economically weaker sections ('EWS') of citizens in a landmark decision. S. Ravindra Bhat, J prepared the minority (dissenting) opinion for himself and U.U. Lalit, CJ, whereas Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala, filed separate but concurrent views creating the majority.
The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 [103rd Constitution Amendment], which took effect on 14.01.2019, amends Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution by adding two new clauses, clause (6) to Article 15 with Explanation and clause (6) to Article 16; thereby empowering the State, among other things, to provide for a maximum of 10% reservation for "the economically weaker sections" of citizens other than "the Scheduled Castes", "the Scheduled Tribes", The amendment in question does not mandate, but rather allows for EWS reservations with a 10% ceiling limit.
Grounds for Controversy-
1. Making special provisions, such as reservations in education and employment based on economic criteria, is entirely prohibited and violates the fundamental structure of the Constitution.2. In any case, excluding socially and educationally backward classes, such as SCs, STs, and non-creamy layer OBCs, from the benefit of these special provisions for EWS is inexplicably discriminatory and undermines the Constitution's fundamental structure.
3. Providing for 10% additional reservation directly violates the 50% reservation ceiling already established by Supreme Court decisions, resulting in unacceptable abrogation of the Equality Code, which, once again, destroys the basic structure of the Constitution.
The amendment in question, empowering the state to make special provisions for economically weaker sections of citizens, is squarely within the four corners of the Indian Constitution; rather, such provisions are required to achieve the Preambular goal of 'JUSTICE, social, economic, and political in a real sense.
There is no discrimination in connection to the classes that are excluded from EWS for the simple reason that the existing special affirmative action provisions in their relation remain in effect. Concerning the breach of the 50% reservation ceiling, the claim is that it is not rigid or inviolable and that in the context of the object intended to be achieved, 10% has been provided as the maximum by way of the enabling clause.
The key issues determined in the judgement are -Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria?
Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions concerning admission to private unaided institutions?
Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution in excluding the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation?
The 103rd Constitution Amendment cannot be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria.
The 103rd Constitution Amendment cannot be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions concerning admission to private unaided institutions.
The 103rd Constitution Amendment cannot be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution in excluding the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation.
According to the majority, the change does not violate the essential structure on any of the aforementioned points. According to the majority opinion of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala, reservation based only on economic reasons does not contradict the fundamental structure of the Constitution. They have also ruled that EWS reservations above the 50% upper limit do not contradict the basic framework.
The court also concluded-
“The Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and the backward class for whom the special provisions have already been provided in Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) form a separate category as distinguished from the general or unreserved category. They cannot be treated at par with the citizens belonging to the general or unreserved category.”