10% EWS quota does not violate basic structure of constitution: Supreme Court

New Delhi: In a 3:2 majority, the five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment that introduced a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) of the forward castes in education and government jobs.

Four judgments were passed in the case. While Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice JB Pardiwala approved the special quota for the economically weaker section of the forward caste, and Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat gave dissenting judgments.

As per the majority view, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. They have also held that breach of the 50% ceiling limit by EWS reservation does not violate the basic structure.

"Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action by State so as to ensure an all-inclusive approach. It is an instrument not only for the inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes...Reservation for EWS does not violate basic structure on account of 50% ceiling limit because ceiling limit is not inflexible," the majority judgment said.

Justice Trivedi in her judgment said that the State has come out with an amendment for the advancement of EWS categories.

"The impugned amendment has to be treated as affirmative action by the Parliament for the benefit of EWS class. It cannot be said to be an unreasonable classification...Treating EWS as a separate class would be a reasonable classification. Just as equals as unequals, unequals cannot be treated equally. Treating unequals equally violates equality under the Constitution...The amendment creates a separate class of EWS. The exclusion of SEBCs cannot be said as discriminatory or violative of Constitution," she observed.

In their dissenting judgment, however, Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat said the reservation on economic criteria is per se not violative. However, by excluding the poor among SC/ST/OBC from economically backward classes (on the ground that they have enjoyed benefits), the 103rd Amendment practices constitutionally prohibited forms of discrimination, they opined.

"Our constitution does not permit exclusion and this amendment undermines the fabric of social justice and thereby the basic structure. This amendment is deluding us to believe that those getting social and backward class benefit is somehow better placed. This court has held that 16(1) and (4) are facets of the same equality principle. The characterization of excluding the poor of SEBCs is incorrect. What is described as benefits cannot be understood as a free pass, it is a compensatory mechanism to separate...The exclusion is based on the social origin which destroys the equality code."

They also opined against breaching the 50% ceiling in matters of reservation. He said, "Permitting a breach of 50% would result in compartmentalisation. The rule of right to equality will become right to reservations taking us back to Champakam Dorairajan."

Economic reservation in jobs and education was proposed to be provided by inserting clause (6) in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution through the amendment passed by the Parliament in January 2019.

After the amendment was notified by the President, a batch of petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the economic reservation.

The petitioners challenged the Constitutional amendment that enabled the government to make a special 10% quota for the advancement of any economically weaker section, including reservations in educational institutions.

(With inputs from Live Law)