Describe the Supreme Court’s judgment on the 103rd Constitutional amendment.

by

The Supreme Court’s Judgment on the 103rd Constitutional Amendment: A Reserved Category for Economically Weaker Sections

Introduction:

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government jobs and educational institutions. This amendment aimed to address economic inequality within the general category, a segment of the population not previously covered by existing reservation policies based on caste and social backwardness. The amendment sparked significant debate, with challenges arising regarding its constitutionality and potential impact on existing reservation policies for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The Supreme Court’s judgment on this amendment, delivered in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, became crucial in determining the legality and implications of this significant policy change.

Body:

1. The Amendment’s Provisions: The 103rd Amendment inserted Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) into the Constitution. Article 15(6) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens, and Article 16(6) extends this provision to government appointments and posts. The amendment defined “economically weaker sections” based on an annual family income criterion (initially set at ₹8 lakh) and other criteria related to land ownership and residential area.

2. The Challenges to the Amendment: Several petitions challenged the constitutionality of the amendment, arguing primarily that:

  • Violation of the Basic Structure: Petitioners contended that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution by exceeding the 50% reservation limit established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Commission case). They argued that introducing a new reservation category without considering the overall impact on existing reservations would disrupt the delicate balance established by previous judgments.
  • Creamy Layer Exclusion: Concerns were raised about the lack of a “creamy layer” exclusion for the EWS category, potentially allowing affluent individuals to benefit from the reservation. The existing reservation policies for SCs, STs, and OBCs include a “creamy layer” provision to prevent the concentration of benefits within the already privileged sections of these communities.
  • Impact on Merit: Critics argued that the amendment would negatively impact merit and efficiency in government services and educational institutions.

3. The Supreme Court’s Judgment: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment. However, it clarified several aspects:

  • The 50% Limit: The Court acknowledged the 50% reservation limit set in Indra Sawhney, but it did not consider the EWS reservation as falling within this limit. The Court reasoned that the EWS reservation was a separate category based on economic criteria, distinct from the existing caste-based reservations.
  • No Creamy Layer Exclusion (Initially): The Court initially did not mandate a creamy layer exclusion for the EWS category. This aspect was later addressed through government notifications.
  • Balancing Competing Interests: The Court emphasized the need to balance the competing interests of social justice and merit. It recognized the importance of addressing economic inequality while upholding the principles of meritocracy.

4. Subsequent Developments: Following the Supreme Court’s judgment, the government issued notifications clarifying the criteria for EWS reservation, including the introduction of a creamy layer exclusion. This addressed some of the initial concerns regarding the potential for misuse of the reservation.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment on the 103rd Constitutional Amendment represents a significant development in India’s affirmative action policy. While upholding the amendment, the Court emphasized the need for a nuanced approach to balancing social justice and merit. The introduction of the EWS reservation, while aiming to address economic inequality, also raised concerns about the potential impact on existing reservation policies and the principle of merit. The subsequent implementation of a creamy layer exclusion and further clarifications have attempted to mitigate some of these concerns. Moving forward, continuous monitoring and evaluation of the EWS reservation policy are crucial to ensure its effectiveness in achieving its intended goals while upholding the principles of equality, justice, and merit enshrined in the Constitution. A holistic approach that considers both economic and social factors in addressing inequality remains vital for achieving inclusive and sustainable development.

[/lockercat]HPPCS Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for HPPCS Prelims and HPPCS Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by HPPCS Notes are as follows:- For any doubt, Just leave us a Chat or Fill us a querry––