In the recent time, the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota has been a subject of discussion. Addressing this crucial topic, a government committee report presented to the Supreme Court reveals that the income is pivotal in gauging who falls under the EWS category.
EWS Quota: An Overview
The EWS quota was inaugurated under the 103rd Constitution (Amendment) Act in 2019 after amending Articles 15 and 16. Consequently, it led to the insertion of Article 15 (6) and Article 16 (6). The purpose of this quota was to offer economic reservation in jobs as well as admissions in education institutes for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). It also caters to the welfare of individuals who do not fall under the 50% reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).
The quota empowers both the Centre and the states to provide reservation to the society’s EWS. To identify the EWS, a notification dated January 17, 2019 introduced an income criterion. This notification also specified other conditions, such as the beneficiary’s family must not own or possess certain assets, including agricultural land, a residential flat, and residential plot in specific areas.
Insights from the Government Committee Report
A notable issue that rose in October 2021 was when NEET aspirants questioned the criteria behind setting ‘Rs 8 lakh’ as the annual income benchmark for identifying EWS for 10% reservation. Addressing this issue, the committee stated that this criterion succeeds in maintaining a balance between over-inclusion and inclusion errors, and deemed it reasonable.
Contrary to popular belief, it also clarified that the ‘Rs 8 lakh’ wasn’t adopted because it is also used for the OBC creamy layer cut-off. The report highlighted how these two criteria are applied differently. For EWS, the income criterion pertains to the financial year prior to the year of application, whereas for the OBC category, it applies to the gross annual income for three consecutive years. Additionally, income from certain sources like salaries and farming are considered for the EWS, which is not the case for OBC.
Despite the similarities in the cut-off number, the composition is different, thereby making the two incomparable. The Supreme Court has also supported the concept of a uniform income-based threshold, endorsing its adoption nationwide as a viable economic and social policy.
Recommendations from the Report
The committee report proposed several recommendations to streamline the process of EWS reservation. It pointed out that adopting new criteria suddenly for educational institution admissions could delay the process and affect subsequent events like teaching and examinations. Therefore, it suggested continuing the existing criteria wherever the EWS reservation is available.
Additionally, the report recommended removing the residential asset criteria while retaining the five-acre agricultural plot criterion. Furthermore, it suggested utilizing data exchange and information technology actively to verify income and assets, improving targeting for EWS reservations and governmental schemes alike.
In light of monitoring the actual outcomes and adjusting future criteria, the committee also recommended incorporating a three-year feedback loop cycle. According to their outlook, the recommended criteria could be applied from the next advertisement/admission cycle.