In a landmark 2022 judgment affirming 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in public employment and education. This decision, delivered by a 3:2 majority in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, marked a significant expansion of affirmative action beyond
caste-based criteria.
*Case Background*
The 103rd Amendment, enacted in 2019, inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to provide EWS quotas for general category citizens excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs, based purely on economic criteria like family income below ₹8 lakh annually.
*Decision of the Supreme Court:*
The Constitution Bench (five judges) upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment by 3:2 majority. Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi and Pardiwala wrote separate opinions upholding the validity of the Amendment. Justice
Bhat wrote a dissenting opinion for himself and Chief Justice Lalit, which found the 103rd Constitution Amendment to be unconstitutional.
All five Judges agreed that reservations can be provided based on economic criteria. It was held that affirmative action can be provided in favour of the disadvantaged groups who have been unable to progress due to poverty. The Court by majority of 3:2 held that SCs, STs and OBCs can be excluded from the scope of EWS reservations by treating EWS as a separate class, different from those who are already benefiting from reservations.The majority further found that 10% EWS reservation in excess of the existing 50% limit on reservations set out in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) was constitutional. It was held that the 50% limit is flexible and it may be breached in extraordinary situations.
Justice Bhat writing for himself, and Chief Justice Lalit held that the exclusion of SEBCs, SCs, STs and OBCs from EWS reservations results in discrimination against the poorest sections of the society who are socially and educationally backward and have been subjected to caste discrimination. Their exclusion violates the principle of equality. He therefore held that the 103rd Constitution Amendment was unconstitutional because it violated the
basic structure of the Constitution by discriminating against SEBCs, SCs, STs and OBCs (non-creamy layer).
Petitions challenged it for breaching the 50% reservation ceiling from Indra Sawhney (1992) and violating the Constitution’s basic structure, including equality under Article 14.
Majority Ruling (3:2)Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi, and J.B. Pardiwala formed the majority, ruling that economic criteria for reservation is permissible as an inclusionary measure, not exclusionary. They held it does not alter the Constitution’s basic structure, as reservations need not be limited to social backwardness, and the 50% cap is not inviolable for justifiable reasons.
*Key Reasoning*
EWS reservation promotes substantive equality without undermining existing SC/ST/OBC quotas.Excluding already-reserved categories from EWS is a reasonable classification, not discrimination.The amendment enables affirmative action for the poor in the general category, aligning with constitutional goals of an egalitarian society.
*Dissenting Opinions*
Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat dissented, arguing the amendment breaches equality by excluding SCs/STs/OBCs and exceeds the 50% limit, fracturing the “equality code” and basic structure. They viewed it as arbitrary, potentially opening doors to unlimited reservations.
*Breach of 50% Ceiling*
The dissent held that breaching the 50% reservation cap from Indra Sawhney (1992) without exceptional circumstances undermines equality of opportunity under Article 16. They viewed the EWS quota as impermissibly pushing total reservations over 50-60%, creating an imbalance that favors groups over merit.
*Violation of Basic Structure*
Excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS benefits was seen as reverse discrimination and arbitrary under Article
14. This exclusion fractures the “equality code,” altering the Constitution’s basic structure by introducing an exclusionary economic criterion that stigmatizes existing reserved categories.
*Narrow Interpretation of Reservations*
Reservations were traditionally tied to social and
educational backwardness, not purely economic status. The dissent argued economic aid should come via welfare schemes, not quotas, as EWS lacks identifiable backwardness and risks perpetuating caste-based divisions indirectly.
*Policy and Practical Concerns*
The criteria (₹8 lakh income, property limits) were deemed vague and overbroad, potentially benefiting the creamy layer while excluding genuine poor from reserved groups. This could lead to 100% reservation in some states, eroding open competition.
The majority opinion in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) upheld the 103rd Amendment by a 3:2 margin, with Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi, and J.B. Pardiwala emphasizing economic criteria as a valid basis for reservations.
*Flexibility of 50% Cap*
The 50% reservation ceiling from Indra Sawhney (1992) is not an unassailable rule but can be exceeded for extraordinary reasons like addressing economic deprivation in the general category. EWS quotas do not
disturb existing SC/ST/OBC reservations, preserving balance.
*No Basic Structure Violation*
Articles 15(6) and 16(6) enhance substantive equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16 without altering the Constitution’s core framework. Economic backwardness qualifies as a legitimate classification, distinct from caste-based affirmative action.
*Inclusionary Nature*
Excluding reserved categories from EWS is rational, as they already receive benefits, preventing double advantages. This scheme promotes an egalitarian society by aiding the poor among forward classes through quotas, not welfare alone.
*Permissibility of Economic Criterion*
Reservations need not be confined to social/educational backwardness; poverty is an independent ground for affirmative action. The ₹8 lakh income threshold and property criteria form a reasonable, non-arbitrary mechanism.
