EWS Reservation: 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, passed in 2019, marked a significant change in India's affirmative action policies. It introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in educational institutions and government jobs to address economic inequalities in society. This amendment has sparked debates about its impact on constitutional equality and the fundamental structure of the Indian Constitution.
Below is a detailed overview:
What is the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act?
The 103rd Amendment Act provides reservations for EWS in state appointments and educational institutions. This reservation, covering up to 10% of total seats, has been both praised as a tool for economic justice and criticized for potentially undermining constitutional principles.
Key Features of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act
10% EWS Reservation:
Aims to benefit individuals from economically weaker backgrounds in addition to the existing 50% reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs.
Amendments to Articles 15 and 16:
Article 15(6): Enables special provisions for EWS in educational institutions.
Article 16(6): Provides for reservations in public employment for EWS.
Eligibility Criteria for EWS:
Annual family income below ₹8 lakh.
Ownership limits:
Agricultural land less than 5 acres.
Residential flat below 1,000 square feet.
House less than 100 square yards in notified municipalities.
Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC Groups:
Reserved solely for individuals not covered under existing SC/ST/OBC reservations.
Applicability:
Includes all educational institutions, private or public, except minority institutions under Article 30(1).
Rationale for the Amendment
Addressing Economic Inequality:
Extends benefits to economically disadvantaged sections outside caste-based reservations.
Inclusive Growth:
Ensures economic disadvantages do not hinder access to education and jobs.
Constitutional Directive:
Aligns with Article 46, promoting the interests of marginalized groups.
Political and Social Demand:
Responds to calls for addressing the needs of economically weaker individuals in the general category.
Balancing Reservation Policies:
Broadens affirmative action beyond caste-based criteria, aiming for a more comprehensive approach.
Supreme Court Verdict on the 103rd Constitutional Amendment
In the 2022 Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India case, the Supreme Court upheld the amendment's constitutionality by a 3:2 majority.
Key Points of the Verdict:
The amendment does not violate the Constitution's basic structure, despite exceeding the 50% reservation cap set by earlier judgments.
Judges highlighted the legitimacy of economic criteria for reservations.
Judicial Opinions:
In Favor (3 Judges): Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi, and Pardiwala supported the exclusion of SC/ST/OBC groups, arguing that equality requires treating unequals differently.
Against (2 Judges): Justice Bhat opposed the exclusion, arguing it breached constitutional equality and the 50% cap established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
Impacts of the 103rd Amendment
Broadened Reservation Policy:
Incorporates economic disadvantage as a criterion, paving the way for similar measures in the future.
Administrative Challenges:
Requires mechanisms to identify eligible beneficiaries and prevent misuse through fake certificates.
Educational Access:
Expands opportunities in premier institutions like IITs and IIMs, raising concerns about balancing meritocracy.
Reduced Merit Seats:
Affects availability for candidates across all categories.
Potential Future Demands:
May lead to demands for reservations from other groups, challenging the existing framework.
Legal Precedents:
Sets a benchmark for future amendments and affirmative action policies, particularly regarding the reservation cap and economic criteria.
Conclusion
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act represents a paradigm shift in India's reservation policies, prioritizing economic criteria over traditional caste-based reservations. While it addresses long-standing demands for economic justice, it raises complex legal, administrative, and ethical questions about balancing merit, equality, and the scope of affirmative action in a diverse society.