Supreme Court Verdict on EWS Quota

EWS quota does not go against the basic structure: SC

• The 103rd amendment to the Constitution, which added a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections, was recently upheld by the Supreme Court (EWS).

More information about the Supreme Court's ruling

Concerning "Exclusion of the Reserved Categories from the EWS Quota":

• Issue: Critics contend that by excluding (Socially and Educationally Backward Classes)/OBCs (Other Backward Classes)/SCs (Scheduled Castes)/STs (Scheduled Tribes) from the scope of EWS reservation, the act violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
• According to the court, leaving the reserved categories out of the EWS quota does not go against the equality legislation.
• The fundamental framework of the constitution, according to the court, is not harmed in any way by this.

Concerning the "Reservation for EWS in excess of the 50% cap":

• The Supreme Court ruled in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, also known as the Mandal Commission case, that total reservation should not exceed 50%.
• According to critics, the 50% limit is a constitutional requirement without which the structure of equality of opportunity would collapse.
• The court also ruled that the reservation for EWS above the 50 percent cap does not violate the basic structure.
• According to the court's statement, the ceiling is not inflexible on its own and, in any case, only applies to reservations contemplated by Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) of the Constitution.

Affirmative action:

• An amendment allowing states to make special provisions for EWS other than Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes must be treated as affirmative action by the Parliament for the benefit and improvement of the EWS category.

Regarding reservation duration:

• Though it was intended that reservations would have a time limit, they have yet to be implemented even after 75 years of independence.
• The Court also stated that the policy should be reconsidered in the larger interest of society as a whole, as a step toward transformative constitutionalism.

103rd Amendment Act

• The Parliament amended the Constitution of India (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, to provide for a 10% reservation in education and government jobs in India for a subset of General category candidates.
• Articles 15 (6) and 16 (6) are introduced:
• Articles 15 and 16 were amended to include an economic reservation. It amended the Constitution by inserting Articles 15 (6) and 16 (6) to allow reservation for the economically disadvantaged in the unreserved category.
• Article 15(6): Up to 10% of seats in educational institutions may be reserved for EWS. Minority educational institutions will be exempt from such restrictions.
• Article 16(6) allows the government to set aside up to 10% of all government jobs for the EWS.

Arguments in Favor of the f EWS Quota

• The quota is progressive: the economically disadvantaged have been denied access to higher education and public employment due to financial constraints.
• The quota is progressive and has the potential to address India's educational and income disparities.
• Abysmal conditions: The reservation criteria should be economic because many classes other than backward classes live in abysmal conditions but are unable to benefit from the reservation and its intended benefits.
• Union of India v. Ram Singh (2015): In this case, the Supreme Court asserted that social deficiencies may exist outside of the concept of caste (for example, economic status/gender identity as in transgenders).
• The "quota-for-poor" policy is a symptom of a larger failure.
• It replaces the principle that welfare should be the primary goal of public policy, conceals the state's massive failure in dealing with issues of poverty and deprivation, and, at the same time, indicates a dead end in policy-making itself.

Reasons to oppose the EWS Quota

• Reservation based on economic criteria: Although family income can be one of the parameters, reservation based entirely on economic criteria is not an all-in-one solution.
• Determining economic backwardness: Determining economic backwardness is a major challenge because there are concerns about who should and should not be included in the criteria.
• Opportunity equality: In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), a Constitution Bench ruled that equality is part of the Constitution's basic structure.

Financial strain:

• The implementation of the quota is a challenge in and of itself, as states lack the financial resources to enforce even the current and constitutionally mandated reservations.
• Other: It removes the constitutionally permitted gatekeeping mechanism of social and educational backwardness, making reservation available to all, regardless of social backwardness.
• Reservation has also become synonymous with anti-merit; with reservation's expansion, this opinion may become even more entrenched in the public psyche.

Constitutional provisions on the subject

• Articles 16(1) and 16(2) guarantee citizens equal opportunity in employment or appointment to government positions.
• Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination against any citizen based on religion, caste, gender, or place of birth.
• Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that the equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favour of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs).
• Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.

Read Also: RESERVATION IN INDIA