Open Access Research Article
CASE COMMENT: JANHIT ABHIYAN V. UNION OF INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
CASE COMMENT: JANHIT ABHIYAN V. UNION
OF INDIA
AUTHORED BY - VICKY KUMAR
LL.M Student of Chanakya National Law
University Patna
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) 55 Of 2019,
(2022) SCC OnLine 1540
Bench:
UU Lalit (CJ), D Maheshwari, SR Bhat, BM Trivedi, JD Pardiwala.
INTRODUCTION
The One
Hundred and Third (103rd) Amendment to the Indian Constitution was introduced
by the Indian Parliament on January 9, 2019. The purpose of this amendment was
to increase the employment opportunities and reservations for economically
disadvantaged groups in educational institutions. It accomplished this by
adding Article 16(6) and modifying Article 15 by adding Article 15(6).
Although
the President of India approved the amendment in 2019, the topic has been
controversial since it allowed the state the power to make special arrangements
for the less fortunate parts of the population in terms of job and educational
opportunities. A maximum of twenty petitions have been filed challenging the
constitutionality of the 103rd amendment.
The case
was decided 3–2 by a five-judge constitutional bench that represented the
Supreme Court. The case primarily concerned constitutionality and fundamental
structural theory. This article will include an overview of the case, some
important details, the Supreme Court's justification for its decision, the
arguments put up by both side, and the reasons this decision is noteworthy for
redefining reservation in India as a whole.
FACTS
OF THIS CASE
In
response to the current situation, the Indian government passed the 103rd
Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, which granted 10% of reserves to
economically disadvantaged communities. It's important to keep in mind that the
constitution only allows reservations based on socioeconomic and educational
deprivation. The Constitution's Article 15(6) in Article 15 and Article 16(6)
in Article 16 are the two new parts added by this modification. This reserve
clause was also mandated by the amendment's language, and it was applicable to
both government and private institutions (assisted and unaided). Minority
institutes were the only exception, as stated in Article 30(1) of the Indian
Constitution. By implementing the 10% reserve requirement in this way, the number
of seats that are now in place will increase by 10% without changing how seats
are distributed among government employment and educational institutions. A
100-seat institute will have 110 seats overall, plus 10 extra seats set up for
people from low-income backgrounds. This sparked a contentious constitutional
debate on the state's right to set new standards for reserving residents in
economically disadvantaged areas. As a result, the Supreme Court heard about
twenty petitions challenging the constitutional amendment's validity.
ISSUES
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE
The
following were the issues raised:
·
Is it possible to make a reservation exclusively on
the basis of economic criteria?
·
Whether other socially impoverished sections (such
as Schedule Casts, Schedule Tribes, and Socially and Educationally Backward
sections) should be excluded from the reservation of Economically Weaker Section?
·
Can the reservation under the Economically Weaker
segment go beyond the 50% limit set in Indira Sweney’s 1992 decision?
·
Can the Constitutional Amendment compel private
aided or private unaided institutes to admit students from economically
disadvantaged groups?
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONERS
The
Petitioner’s stance on the 103rd amendment reflects several crucial perspectives:
Contradiction
to Reservation Principles: The argument that the amendment violates the core
tenets of affirmative action by extending reservations to a group of people who
have never been marginalized historically. The premise of the argument is that
reservations ought to take into account both previous social injustice and
economic factors. This point of view is consistent with rulings such as the
Mandal Commission report[1]
and the Indra Sawhney case[2],
which highlighted the complex nature of reservations that go beyond economic
status.
Ceiling
Violation Of 50% : There's a strong case to be made that the 103rd Amendment's
50% reservation cap should only be altered in truly exceptional circumstances.
From this perspective, maintaining the 50% cap is necessary to respect the
original intent of reservations without lowering opportunities for other social
groups.
Reasons
for The Reservations: The argument implies that even if the impoverished
classes attain equality with the affluent classes, poverty and economic
inequality may persist. This point of view questions whether the amendment
achieves the main objectives of reservations, especially those stated by B.R.
Ambedkar. It highlights the concern that reservations may lose their
significance if they don't prioritize redressing historical injustices in
society.
Challenge of Article 14: Article 14 (Right to
equality) and the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution are
allegedly violated by the exclusion of SC/ST and SEBC from the new reservations
within the general caste. This viewpoint emphasizes the significance of
providing all citizens, regardless of caste or social background, with equal
treatment and opportunities.
Criticism
of Economic Weaker Sections (EWS) Reservation: The EWS reservation is
criticized for potentially perpetuating caste divisions in a society that
strives to be caste-free. The vertical reservation imposed inside an
already-existing quota system appears to be at odds with the nation's goal of a
casteless society, as stated in the preamble of the Indian Constitution.
Essentially,
the petitioner's viewpoints express worries about the amendment's conformity to
constitutional norms, its departure from the original reservation intention,
and its likelihood of sustaining social stratification instead than redressing
past injustices.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENTS
Reservation
Policy's Class-Based Focus: According to the respondents, the primary goal of
reservation policy is to uplift economically disadvantaged classes rather than
maintain caste-based distinctions. The argument posits that the amendment's
intention to assist economically disadvantaged groups is consistent with the
core objective of mitigating economic inequities, thereby advancing the
constitutional vision of a caste-free society. This focus on economic factors is
thought to be a progressive measure to guarantee fair opportunities.
Reinforcing
Constitutional Principles: The Attorney General's position emphasizes that the
amendment strengthens rather than weakens the foundational ideas of the
document. Citing Directive Principles of State Policy Articles 38 and 46,
respondents argue for a flexible reading of the constitution. The claim that
the amendment is in line with these fundamental ambitions for societal fairness
is supported by these provisions, which require the state to take proactive
steps toward eliminating various inequities.
Economic
Criteria in Classification: Based on prior legal rulings, the respondents
contend that poverty has been acknowledged by the courts in cases such as M.R.
Balaji[3], R
Chitralekha v. State of Mysore[4],
and Vasanth Kumar as an indicator of backwardness. The emphasis on economic
criteria in the amendment's provisions is justified by the historical evidence
that supports the use of economic elements in the classification of backwardness.
Justification
for EWS Reservation: The respondents claim that the 10% cap on EWS reservations
does not violate the rights of currently in place reserved categories. They
contend that since some groups—such as SCs, STs, and non-creamy layer OBCs—already
benefit from special reservation rules, their exclusion is warranted. In order
to address economic gaps beyond caste factors, the 10% quota for economically
disadvantaged parts is viewed as an addition rather than a replacement.
Exceeding
the 50% Reservation Limit: Respondents contend that although it is usually
discouraged, there are some rare situations when such deviations may be
justified. They argue that by granting reservation benefits to economically
disadvantaged groups, the amendment responds to societal demands and works
toward genuine equality. While recognising the complexity of social and
economic inequities, the emphasis is still on guaranteeing fair chances. Overall,
the respondents' points of contention center on the amendment's conformity to
constitutional norms, the importance of economic standards in determining
backwardness, and the goal of achieving substantive equality by extending
reservation benefits to economically disadvantaged groups while protecting the
rights of currently reserved categories.
JUDGEMENT
By a 3:2
majority, the Supreme Court issued a historic ruling on November 7, 2022,
maintaining the validity of the 103rd Amendment Act of 2019 and permitting
reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
highlighted, among other things, that the 10% quota for EWS did not contradict
the fundamental values of the Constitution. He argued that the 50% reservation
cap outlined in Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution is
not unchangeable and does not apply to EWS reservations.
Justice
Bela M. Trivedi reiterated this point, stressing that recognising economically
disadvantaged individuals as a distinct class does not undermine the
constitutional framework. Justice Pardiwala supported the idea that affirmative
action could have reasonable economic motives in line with the concept of
substantive equality. Nonetheless, Justice Bhat sharply disapproved of the
majority's view of "economic factors" as grounds for Article 15
reservations in public employment, and questioned the validity of this
position. He cited the Indra Sawhney case[5] to
highlight the fact that reservations shouldn't be granted solely for financial
reasons. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling did not expressly rule out
reservations because of financial factors.This decision illustrates the
differences in the Supreme Court's perspectives about the inclusion of economic
factors in reserve criteria. The majority felt that since economic inequality
is a valid category and the 50% maximum is flexible, EWS reservations should be
included. The opposing viewpoint, on the other hand, stressed how important it
was to uphold reservations' original purpose, which was to establish them on
social backwardness as opposed to just economic status. The ruling leaves room
for more debate and possibly future clarifications about the limits of the
quota policy with respect to economic considerations inside the Indian
constitutional framework.
ANALYSIS
As this
article has previously stated, reservations were imposed in India with the aim
of improving the lives of the less fortunate sections of the population. It is
still a topic of heated debate and intense discussions even though it has
existed since the post-independence period when the Constitution came into
force. Many claim that other members of society who may be economically weak
but do not belong to a disadvantaged caste have been unfairly treated by the
advancement of SCs, STs, and OBCs. Those that benefit from these reservations
are often those who are already well-off, well-resourced, and have access to
excellent education.
Although
most reservation laws provide access to government jobs and education, some
have questioned if these actions will ultimately result in a decline in the
standard of the labor force and educational system. Some argue that
reservations only deepen the divide between the people, causing resentment and
obstructing development. Moreover, reserve measures have historically been
abused by political parties to achieve their electoral goals. Many state
governments enact legislation that beyond the reserve ceiling set by the Court
in the Indra Sawhney case for political purposes. However, it is clear that
such measures are still necessary to address the widespread poverty and
inequality that impact the people of India. Even in the face of abuse, strong
action is required to give social and economic benefits to all underprivileged
populations and groups in our society.
CONCLUSION
The 103rd
Amendment Act of 2019 marked a significant advancement in India's efforts to
reduce socioeconomic inequities by introducing reservation privileges for the
economically disadvantaged inside the general category. This amendment created
a category to lessen the difficulties faced by individuals without financial
privilege, to which 10% of government employment and seats in educational
institutions were assigned. The amendment sought to lessen economic and
educational inequalities by substituting an economic quota system for the previous
caste-based one. It was meant to provide opportunities for people who, because
of financial constraints, were not previously able to take part on an equal
basis
One can
study and examine the 103rd amendment to the constitution in depth. This amendment
extends reservation to the economically disadvantaged segments of society under
Articles 15(6) and 16(6). From there, it is feasible to examine the reality
that poverty persists in India and that significant reform is required to
advance social and economic justice for all socioeconomic classes. The state
must guarantee social homogeneity in order to reduce the wealth gap and create
social mobility.
According
to the Supreme Court's interpretation, the amendment can achieve the preambular
objective of guaranteeing economic justice for all. Additionally, CJI UU Lalit
and J Ravindra Bhat's conflicting views highlight the historical significance
of reservations as a kind of compensation for those who have historically faced
discrimination due to their caste.
While this
assessment emphasizes both the social and economic dimensions of society's
backwardness, it is important to recognize that these variables are intricately
linked and should be taken into account for the good of society as a whole.
[1] India, Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment, Mandal Commission Report: Recommendations of the Mandal
Commission (1979).
[2] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,
(1992) 3 SCC 217.
[3] Mr. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR
1963 SC 649.
[4] R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore,
AIR 1964 SC 1823.
[5] Supra
note 2
Article Information
CASE COMMENT: JANHIT ABHIYAN V. UNION OF INDIA
Authors: VICKY KUMAR
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/03/24
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.