On Tuesday, the Supreme Court put on hold its decision regarding a number of arguments contesting the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which grants members of the economically weaker sections (EWS) a 10% reservation in admissions and government employment. After hearing from a slew of senior attorneys, including Attorney General K K Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in the marathon hearing that lasted six and a half days, a five-judge Constitution bench presided over by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit reserved its decision on the legal question of whether the EWS quota violated the fundamental principles of the constitution.
EWS Quota: Supreme Court hearing
Academician Mohan Gopal had begun the case’s arguments before the court on September 13 and opposed the EWS quota amendment, calling it “deceitful and a backdoor attempt” to abolish the idea of reservation. The bench also included Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, and J B Pardiwala. Senior attorneys like Ravi Verma Kumar, P Wilson, Meenakshi Arora, Sanjay Parikh, and K S Chauhan as well as attorney Shadan Farasat criticised the quota, claiming it excluded the poor who fall under the categories of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and that this violated the idea of the “creamy layer.”
The top court would need to review the Indira Sawhney (Mandal) decision if it decided to uphold this reservation, according to Tamil Nadu, which prominent attorney Shekhar Naphade represented. Tamil Nadu also rejected the EWS quota.
The attorney general and solicitor general, on the other hand, passionately defended the modification, stating that the reserve made under it was distinct and had been issued without affecting the 50% quota intended for the socially and economically deprived sections (SEBC). As a result, they claimed, the modified provision does not go against the Constitution’s fundamental principles.
The solicitor general made a thorough case for the state’s ability to use affirmative action to elevate the poor above the general category, claiming that the constitutional amendment strengthens a key element of the document and that its legitimacy cannot be questioned based on a few statistical findings. He claimed that the EWS quota was “necessary” to help the poor in general, a “large part” of the population that was not protected by any preexisting reservation programme.
Senior attorney Gopal Sankaranarayanan endorsed the EWS quota plan, arguing that it was “long overdue” and a “good start in the right direction,” speaking on behalf of the NGO “Youth for Equality.” Up to 40 petitions were examined by the highest court, and the majority of them, including the main one brought by “Janhit Abhiyan” in 2019, disputed the legality of the Constitution Amendment (103rd) Act 2019. The Central Government had submitted a number of petitions asking for the transfer of special cases contesting the EWS quota rule from different high courts to the Supreme Court for a conclusive ruling. On September 8, the bench created three main issues for determination in response to the arguments made against the Center’s decision to give EWS a 10% preference in admissions and employment.
The bench had stated that all the features relevant to the petitions on the constitutional legality of the decision to grant the reserve were “broadly” encompassed by the three concerns identified by the attorney general for the decision. The first question posed asked, “Whether the 103rd Constitution amendment Act can be deemed to violate the fundamental principles of the Constitution by allowing the State to establish exceptional measures, including reservations, based on economic grounds.”
The second legal issue was whether the constitutional amendment’s provision allowing the state to set specific rules for admittance to for-profit universities constituted a violation of the fundamental framework. The final question, which the bench will decide, asked whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment violated the Constitution’s fundamental principles by eliminating SEBCs/OBCs, SCs/STs from the EWS reserve. When ruling the Keshavananda Bharati case in 1973, the Supreme Court introduced the idea of basic structure. It was held that Parliament could not amend every bit of the Constitution, and aspects such as rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial freedom formed part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution and hence, could not be amended.
Through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2019, the Centre established the provision for EWS reservations in admissions and public services. The Centre had previously stated to the Supreme Court of India in 2019 that the introduction of its law, which allotted a 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs), was done in order to advance “social equality” by giving “equal opportunities in higher education and employment to those who have been excluded by virtue of their economic status.” The bill was approved by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on January 8 and January 9, 2019, respectively, and Ram Nath Kovind, the president at the time, subsequently signed it. The present 50% reservation for SCs, STs, and other backward classes is in addition to the EWS quota (OBCs).
