The "Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India" case of 2022 is a landmark judgment concerning the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provided for a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Here's a breakdown:

Introduction:

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2019 introduced Articles 15(6) and 16(6), enabling reservations for EWS in educational institutions and employment. This move sparked widespread debate, challenging the traditional understanding of reservations primarily based on social and educational backwardness. The Janhit Abhiyan case consolidated multiple petitions challenging the amendment's validity.

Issues:

• The primary issue was whether the 103rd Amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

• Key questions included:

• • Whether economic criteria alone could be the basis for reservations.
• • Whether the exclusion of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from the EWS quota was discriminatory.
• • Whether the amendment breached the equality code of the constitution.

Reasoning:

• The majority opinion (3:2) held that the EWS reservation was constitutionally valid.

• The majority reasoned that:

• • Economic backwardness could be a valid criterion for affirmative action.
• • The EWS quota was a distinct category and did not infringe upon existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs.
• • That the amendment did not violate the basic structure of the constitution.

• The dissenting opinion argued that:

• • Excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota violated the principle of equality.
• • Reservations should primarily address social and educational backwardness, not solely economic factors.
• • That the amendment did violate the basic structure of the constitution.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019.

• This judgment affirmed the provision of a 10% reservation for EWS in education and employment.

Conclusion:

The Janhit Abhiyan case significantly impacts the understanding of reservations in India. It broadened the scope of affirmative action to include economic criteria, alongside social and educational factors. The dissenting opinions raised crucial questions about the potential for discrimination and the core principles of equality. The judgement has led to on going discussions regarding the nature of reservations, and how they should be applied in modern India. This case has solidified the EWS quota into Indian law, and will be used as precedent for future cases.