The Supreme Court constitutional bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela Trivedi, Justice JB Pardiwala, CJI UU Lalit, and Justice Ravindra Bhat upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd constitutional amendment, which introduced 10% reservation in education and public employment for economically weaker sections, by a 3:2 majority on Monday. The bench issued four separate judgments, with the majority opinion dissenting from CJI UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat.

In the decision upholding constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, Maheshwari also stated that excluding the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) from the EWS Quota does not violate the Constitution's basic structure. "Exclusion of the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections, being in the nature of balancing the requirements of non-discrimination and compensatory discrimination, does not violate Equality Code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India."

"As noticed infra, there is a definite logic in this exclusion; rather, this exclusion is inevitable for the true operation and effect of the scheme of EWS reservation. Obviously, for the reason that those classes are already provided with affirmative action in terms of reservation, in the wisdom of the Parliament, there was no need to extend them or any of their constituents yet another benefit in the affirmative action of reservation carved out for other economically weaker sections. Moreover, the benefit of reservation avails to the excluded classes/castes under the existing clauses of Articles 15 and 16; and by the amendment in question, the quota earmarked for them is not depleted in any manner."

As a result, the bench held that the basic structure doctrine could not be used to overturn the amendment because the reservation provided in Articles 15 and 16 cannot be considered a basic feature of the Constitution.

Furthermore, he argued that, while reservation is a feature of the Constitution, it is only an enabling provision that cannot be regarded as an essential feature whose modification for the sake of other valid affirmative action would harm the Constitution's basic structure. According to Justice Maheshwari, the breach of the 50 percent ceiling (established by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney) for reservation is only applicable to reservation for socially backward classes under Articles 16(4) and 16(5) of the Constitution.

Justices Bela M. Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala agreed with Justice Maheshwari's decision. In her decision, Justice Bela Trivdei also stated that treating economically disadvantaged citizens as a separate class was a reasonable classification. The reasoning she provided for the same was that "Just as equals cannot be treated unequally, unequals also cannot be treated equally. The Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and the backward class for whom the special provisions have already been provided in Article 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) form a separate category as distinguished from the general or unreserved category. They cannot be treated at par with the citizens belonging to the general or unreserved category."

In contrast, the minority opinion written by Justice Ravindra Bhat and concurred in by CJI UU Lalit stated that including the poor among those covered under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) in the new reservations under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) was incorrectly characterised as bestowing "double benefit."

"What is described as 'benefits' for those covered under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) by the Union, cannot be understood to be a free pass, but as a reparative and compensatory mechanism meant to level the field – where they are unequal due to their social stigmatisation. This exclusion violates the non-discrimination and the non-exclusionary facet of the equality code, which thereby violates the basic structure of the Constitution."

Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, with 32 connected matters 

W.P. (C) No. 55/2019 and connected issues

Read the Complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/1827/1827_2019_1_1501_39619_Judgement_07-Nov-2022.pdf