The Supreme Court on February 12, 2024 began hearing a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act passed in 2019 that provides 10% reservation to the economically weaker sections (EWS) in educational institutions and government jobs. A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna, A.S. Bopanna, and V. Ramasubramanian raised questions about amending the Preamble and basic structure of the Constitution while providing for the EWS quota.
Background of 103rd Amendment
- Passed by Parliament in January 2019
- Inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution to allow 10% quota for EWS
- Defines EWS as persons belonging to all religions except
- Creamy layer of OBCs
- Families with annual income above Rs 8 lakhs
- Owning over 5 acres of agricultural land
- Residential flats of 1000 sq ft or more
- Residential plots of 100 sq yards or more in notified municipalities
- Residential plots of 200 sq yards or more in other areas
- Applicable for admission and public employment
Key Questions Raised
- Whether the 103rd Amendment amounts to altering the basic structure of equality code
- CJI questioned if reservation on economic criteria overrides core feature of Constitution
- Raises issue of balancing between existing quotas and the new EWS quota
- References Kesavananda Bharati case which established basic structure doctrine
- Petitioners argue change in Preamble’s “Equality of status and opportunity” clause
- If classification based purely on economic criterion reasonable
- Exclusion of poor belonging to SC/ST/OBC from EWS quota questioned
- Creates two classes of poor (EWS vs SC/ST/OBC), one included for quota while other excluded
- AG argues Parliament competent to make reasonable classification
Key Statistics on Quota Groups in India
| Group | Current Reservation % | Proposed under 103rd Amendment | Population Share* |
| Scheduled Castes | 15% | No change | 16.6% |
| Scheduled Tribes | 7.5% | No change | 8.6% |
| Other Backward Classes | 27% | No change | 41% |
| Economically Weaker Sections | None currently | 10% (new provision) | 12-13% (est.) |
Hearing Details
February 12, 2024
- Attorney General K.K. Venugopal argues amendment promotes social equality rather than inequality
- Helps bridge gap between haves and have-nots
- Cites NSSO data showing lower income and education levels among EWS
February 13, 2024
- Counterarguments by Petitioners
- Violates Basic Structure Doctrine
- Altering equality code by excluding poor SC/ST/OBCs against Kesavananda judgement
- Preamble promises social justice and equality of status for all
- Cannot deny rights or make special provisions for citizens on economic grounds
- Arbitrary determination of EWS criteria
- Rs 8 lakh annual family income cutoff unreasonable and not based on scientific data
- Excluding SC/ST/OBCs earning below threshold is discriminatory
February 14, 2024
- Court Query on Removing 50% Limit
- Bench asked if 50% limit on reservations needs reconsideration in light of demand for more quotas
- Set in the Indra Sawhney case in 1992 capping quotas at 50% of positions
- AG K.K. Venugopal strongly opposes removing 50% quota limit
- States setting aside more reservations will lead to a slippery slope
Next Steps
The case is still being heard by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court.
- The implications of this case could significantly alter interpretation of equality provisions in the Constitution and concept of reservations in India based on economic versus social backwardness criteria.
- The Court’s verdict expected in early March 2024. Judgement crucial as 103rd amendment already passed by Parliament and EWS quota implemented in some states.
- Outcome will decide if existing criteria withstands scrutiny by apex court.
Possible Implications
- Verdict will have significant impact on future of quotas and affirmative action policy
- If amendment struck down, will invalidate EWS reservation implemented in some states
- Judgement could alter 50% quota limit set in 1992, open door for more reservations
- Government may be forced to review income criteria and definitions if amendment upheld
- Reservation policy likely to remain complex balance between competing demands
- Battle highlights 2024 election issues – economic inequality vs caste injustices
- Case outcome will reshape discourse on balancing growth and social justice
- Judgement adds to history of landmark cases interpreting equality promises of Constitution
- Apex court decision determines if economic criterion valid basis for classification
- Verdict will test basic structure doctrine and application to reservation policy