Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019]: The EWS reservation case.

Author: Devraj Sankla, Student at University College of Law, Osmania University.

Introduction:

The Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation policy in India was introduced to provide 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for the people who were from economically weaker section of the society and who does not belong to the existing reservation categories for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC). This reservation was implemented through the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 which added Article 15(6) to the Constitution, allowing for reservations for economically weaker sections in government jobs and educational institutions. The act was passed by the Indian Parliament and received presidential assent on 10th January, 2019 and the reservation came to effect from 17th January, 2019.

The constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, was challenged in the Supreme Court as it violated the basic structure doctrine of the constitution. The case was known as “The Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India” [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019] case. It is one of the landmark case of the Supreme Court.

Parties Involved:

1. Petitioners: Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabha; Youth for Equality and others. Represented by, Rajeev Dhawan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, MN Rao, Meenakshi Arora and others.

2. Respondent: Union of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment and others. Represented by, Attorney General KK Venugopal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and others.

On the constitutional bench of Former Chief Justice of India- Justice Uday Umesh Lalit (dissenting), Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (dissenting), Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Facts of the case:

The “The Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India” [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019] case which challenged the constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019. The act provided 10% reservation to the people who were from economically weaker section of the society and who does not fall under the existing reservation categories for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC) in government jobs and educational institutions. The act was passed by the Indian Parliament and received presidential assent on 10th January, 2019 and the reservation came to effect from 17th January, 2019. The case was filled by the petitioners, Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabha; Youth for Equality and others in January 2019. The petitioners argued that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution by introducing reservations based on economic criteria. The Act amended the Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution by adding new sub-articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the articles. 

The new sub-article 15(6) gives power to the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any economically weaker section of citizens, including reservations. It further states that the upper limit for EWS reservations will be 10%. The new sub-article 16(6) gives power to the State to make provisions for reservation in government appointments. This reservation will be subject to a 10% ceiling, in addition to the existing reservations. Before the EWS reservation the 49.5% of seats in educational institutions and government appointments were reserved for Scheduled Tribes (ST), Scheduled Castes (SC) and Other Backward Classes (OBC), with 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes, 15% for Scheduled Castes, and 27% for Other Backward Classes. In the of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case the Supreme Court of India set the reservation limit to 50%. The petitioners argued that the EWS reservation also violated the Supreme Court judgement which set the reservation limit of 50% by adding more 10% reservation to EWS category. 

Issues of the case:

The “Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India” case raised several key issues in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation. The main issue was about the constitutional validity of this reservation. The petitioners argued that the amendment for 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), violated the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and disrupted the balance of equality by introducing reservations based on economic criteria and it excluded the socially disadvantaged groups like, Scheduled Tribes (ST), Scheduled Castes (SC) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) from the reservation. They said that economically weaker groups within ST, SC and OBC were equally deserved of the benefits of the EWS reservation. The government’s criteria for determine economic backwardness was challenged by the petitioners, they questioned the constitutional validity of using economic criteria for the reservations, arguing that they did not capture the true extent of economic hardship faced by many individuals. The petitioners argued that the EWS reservation violated the 50% ceiling on reservations set by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case.

Judgement:

The “Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India” case’s landmark judgment was given by the Supreme Court of India on 7th November 2022. The case was regarding the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, which gave 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). The five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict, with a 3:2 majority, and uphold the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019.

The majority judgment held that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The court said that the amendment was a step towards achieving social and economic justice for economically weaker sections of the country. The majority opinion said that the amendment was in line with the principles of equality mentioned in the Constitution. The court justified the use of economic criteria for the reservations, stating that economic criteria was more inclusive and objective way to identify beneficiaries, as opposed to the existing criteria based on social and educational backwardness. The court also upheld the exclusion of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) from the EWS reservation, stating that these groups already had reservations under the existing system. The court also said that the EWS reservation was introduced to benefit those people who did not fall under any of the existing reservation categories, therefore ensuring that the benefits reached a large section of economically disadvantaged peoples of the country. The court also ruled that the 50% ceiling limit on reservations set by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case was not rigid and could be exceeded only in exceptional cases and the EWS reservation was such an exceptional case and it was important to address economic inequalities in the country. The court also supported the extension of the EWS reservation to private educational institutions, stating that it was essential to ensure that economically disadvantaged students had access to quality education and said that the private institutions have a crucial role in the education system and should be included in the reservation policy to promote inclusivity and equal opportunities.

Dissenting Opinion:

In the Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India case, the dissenting opinion was made by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat from the majority opinion. They both argued that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, which introduced the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation, violated the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. They believed that the amendment made changes in the fundamental principles of equality and social justice of the Constitution. They said that reservations should be based on social and educational backwardness and not on the economic criteria of the people. They also said that the EWS reservation violated the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case in which the Supreme Court set the 50% limit for the reservations. They argued that exceeding this limit could lead to an imbalance in the reservation system. They believed that the 50% cap should be strictly followed to, ensuring that reservations do not affect other sections of society. Chief Justice Lalit and Justice Bhat also focused on the issue of excluding Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) from the EWS reservation. They said that this exclusion violated the principle of equality and economically weaker individuals within these socially disadvantaged groups should also benefit from the EWS reservation. They questioned the applicability of the EWS reservation to private institutions. They said that extending reservations to private institutions could weaken their autonomy and affect the quality of education and they believed that private institutions should have the freedom to maintain merit-based admissions and reservations should not be imposed on private institutions.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the “Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India” is one of the landmark cases of the Supreme Court. This case is regarding the constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 which gave 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Section people. The EWS reservation was challenged in the supreme court by the Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabha; Youth for Equality and others. The five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict, with a 3:2 majority, and uphold the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 on 7th November 2022. But the Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat gave a dissenting opinion in the judgement.

Frequently Asked Questions:

1. What is the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019?

A. The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 implemented the 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS).

2. Who challenged the constitutional validity of the act?

A. It was challenged by the Janhit Abhiyan Akhil Bhartiya Kushwaha Mahasabha; Youth for Equality and others.

3. What was the verdict of Supreme Court in this case?

A. A five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict, with a 3:2 majority.

4. Who gave dissenting opinion in the judgement?

A. Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat gave dissenting opinion in the judgement.