Background

The Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) case centered on the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, which introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and employment.

Issues

• Validity of Economic Criteria:

• • Whether economic criteria alone can be the basis for reservation, deviating from the traditional focus on social and educational backwardness.

• Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC:

• • Whether the exclusion of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from the EWS quota violates the principle of equality.

• Basic Structure Doctrine:

• • Whether the amendment violates the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

• 50% Reservation Ceiling:

• • Whether the EWS reservation breaches the 50% ceiling on reservations established in previous Supreme Court rulings.

Analysis:

• The Supreme Court examined the arguments for and against the amendment, focusing on the constitutional provisions related to equality and reservation.

• The majority opinion, delivered by a 3:2 split, upheld the validity of the EWS reservation.

• The majority argued that economic backwardness can be a valid ground for reservation and that the EWS quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

• The dissenting opinion argued that the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs was discriminatory and that reservations based solely on economic criteria are problematic.

• The court analysed the differences between social and educational backwardness, and economical backwardness.

• There was also analysis of the 50% cap on reservations, and if the EWS reservations were effected by this.

Judgement:

• The Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, which provides for a 10% EWS reservation.

• The court held that economic criteria can be a valid basis for reservation and that the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota is not discriminatory.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's decision in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India 2022 represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of India's reservation policy. By upholding the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, the court has broadened the scope of affirmative action to encompass economic backwardness as a standalone criterion, alongside the traditional focus on social and educational disadvantage. This ruling has effectively enshrined the 10% EWS quota within the framework of Indian reservations, triggering widespread discussion and debate regarding the principles of equality and social justice. While the majority opinion validated the economic basis for reservation and the exclusion of existing reserved categories, the dissenting voices highlighted concerns about potential discrimination and the dilution of social justice objectives. Ultimately, the judgment signifies a shift in the understanding of backwardness and the means to address it, reshaping the landscape of affirmative action and prompting further reflection on the balance between economic equity and social representation in India.