Janhit Abhiyan v. UOI: Case Summary of EWS Reservation

Case Title: Janhit Abhyan v. UOI (2022) (EWS Reservation case)

Case citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1540, WP (C) 55/2019.

Facts of Janhit Abhiyan v. UOI

In 2019, 103^rd constitutional amendment was introduced in the Indian constitution which inserted Art. 15(6) and 16(6) providing reservation for economically weaker section of citizens, excepts minority educational institution under Article 30(1).

The upper limit of the reservation was provided to be 10% in addition to the existing reservation. In 2010, Sinoh Commission report was published which provided that based upon the census of 2001 and statistics of 2004-05, 31.7 Crore people were below poverty line, out of which 7.74 Crore were from Schedule Caste and 4.25 Crore people were from Schedule Tribe and 13.86 Crore people were from OBC.

In the given case, the SC constitution bench by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103^rd constitutional amendment Act .

Issues Raised

Three issues were raised in the given case:

1. Whether the 103^rd constitutional amendment is violative of basic structure for providing reservation solely on basis of economic criteria?
2. Whether the amendment is violative of basic structurefor excluding poor among SC/ST/OBCs categories from EWS quota?
3. Whether amendment is violative of the basic structure for breaching the 50% ceiling limit?

Majority view

The majority supported the EWS reservation. It was held by Majority that introduction of reservation on the basis of economic criteria was not violative of the basic structure of the constitution. J. Dinesh Maheshwari, BM Trivedi and JB Pardiwala given the majority judgment.

“Affirmative action by parliament for benefit of EWS class” J. BM Trivedi

“Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action by state so as to ensure all inclusive approach. It is an instrument not only for inclusion for socially and educationally backward classes… reservation for EWS does not violate basic structure on account of 50% ceiling limt because ceiling limit is not inflexible.” J. Maheshwari

Dissenting view

The dissenting view authored by Justice Ravindra Bhatt held that by excluding the poor among SC/ST/OBC from EBCs, the 103^rd amendment practices constitutionally prohibited forms of discrimination. CJI UU Lalit concurred with J. Bhatt view.

“….while the ‘economic criteria’ per se is permissible in relation to access of public goods, the same is not true for Article 16, the goal of which is empowerment through representation of the community.” J. Bhatt

“Our constitution does not permit exclusion and this amendment undermines the fabric of social justice and thereby basic structure. The amendment is deluding us to believe that those getting social and educationally backward class benefit is somehow better placed.”

“Permitting breach of 50% would result in compartmentalization. The rule of equality will become right to reservation taking use back to champakam Dorairajan.”

Review Petition

In 2023, review petition was filed int the SC having title: “Society for the rights of Backward Communities v. Janhit Abhiyan & Ors. (2023).

It was held in the review petition that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

The tragedy of EWS Reservation Constitutionality through Supreme Court Lens (3:2 Upheld) – Legal SYNK

Related Queries

What was held in Janhit Abhiyan v. UOI, What was the facts of Janhit Abhiyan v. UOI, What was said in EWS reservation case by supreme court, What is the status of review petition in Janhit Abhiyan v. UOI, Who were the judges who decided the EWS reservations. Who gave minority opinion in Janhit Abhiyan v. UOI. Who give minority opinion in EWS reservation case.

To read more content on similar topics click here.