The Supreme Court recently upheld the 10% quota for people from economically weaker sections (EWS) in admissions and government jobs with a 3:2 split verdict.
What is the EWS Quota?
The Indian government introduced the EWS Quota to provide reservations in jobs and higher education to the economically weaker sections of society. The 10% reservation applies to people who are not covered by the existing 50% reservations for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and socially and economically backward classes (SEBCs).
The 124th Amendment Bill to the Indian Constitution established the 10% quota. This amendment bill was enacted as the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act on February 12, 2019.
What is the impact of 124th Amendment Bill?
The Bill preserves the other quotas allocated for SC, ST, and OBC communities while allowing states to make limited reservations for direct employment and higher education based on economic criteria.
It amends Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. Article 15 forbids discrimination on the basis of race, religion, caste, sex, or place of birth, whereas Article 16 forbids it in employment by the government.
The changes to Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) aim to help groups who are economically disadvantaged. They give the state governments the freedom to choose whether or not to give the EWS preference for employment in state government positions and admission to educational institutions. They refer to Article 46, which promotes the economic and educational interests of the underprivileged sections of society.
SC Verdict on EWS Quota
The Supreme Court decision was based on three questions centered on
- The constitutionality of the EWS Reservation and its impact on the basic structure
- If the 103rd amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution by allowing the government to make special provisions for admission to private unaided institutions.
- If the amendment violates the fundamental structure by excluding SEBCs, OBCs, SCs, and STs from the EWS reservation.
The five-judge constitution bench, led by CJI Lalit, ruled in a split decision that:
- The 103rd amendment for EWS quota is valid and does not violate the Indian Constitution’s basic structure.
- The EWS Reservation does not jeopardize an essential feature of the Constitution by exceeding the 50% quota ceiling because the ceiling itself is flexible.
- Though the reservation policy needs to be reviewed, the 103rd constitution amendment cannot be repealed on the grounds that it is discriminatory.
- There shouldn’t be any reservations that last forever.
- Justice Ravindra Bhat, who disagreed with the majority verdict on the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, held that the exclusion of poor people from SC/ST/OBC reservations under the EWS category is discriminatory. Chief Justice UU Lalit agreed with the opposing verdict as well.
Other related posts:
