Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) has scrutinized the government’s method of establishing an annual income limit of Rs. 8 lakh for defining the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). This grouping is relevant for implementing a 10% quota in public employment and educational institutes.
Introduction of the 10% EWS Quota
The 10% EWS quota was established under the 103rd Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2019, through alterations to Articles 15 and 16. These amendments led to the insertion of Article 15 (6) and Article 16 (6), providing an avenue for economic reservation in job vacancies and admissions within education institutions for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). The purpose of this legislation was to foster welfare among impoverished individuals not included in the 50% reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC). This enables both the government and the states to offer reservation to the economically weaker sections of society.
Importance of the EWS Quota
The EWS quota holds significant implications for addressing inequality in India. It could potentially address disparities in education and income among economically disadvantaged citizens who have been largely unable to access higher education or secure public employment due to their financial incapacity.
The quota acknowledges the economic challenges faced by various populations beyond the backward classes that live under conditions of extreme poverty and hunger. The proposed reservation offers constitutional recognition to the poor from upper castes.
Additionally, this provision could alleviate caste-based discrimination, which has been historically associated with reservation. As it extends beyond castes, it might gradually reduce the stigma linked with reservation, often reinforced by upper castes’ perspectives.
Concerns Associated with the EWS Quota
Several concerns have arisen regarding the implementation of the EWS quota. The primary issue pertains to a lack of relevant data supporting the need for this policy. While the bill’s Statement of Object and Reason acknowledges the economic exclusion experienced by certain citizens, it fails to back this claim with empirical data.
Further concerns relate to the breach of the reservation cap, as established in the Indira Sawhney case of 1992. The EWS quota violates this 50% limit, without considering the implications of such a move.
Finally, the government’s criteria for determining the eligibility for this reservation is critiqued for its lack of clarity and data-driven justification. The SC posed questions to the government regarding considerations of state-specific GDP per capita when determining the monetary limit for the EWS reservation.
Alternative Approaches to Upliftment
The prevailing reservation policy has had adverse effects on individuals not classified as EWS, by reducing their access to competitive opportunities. Given that candidates from EWS are already well-represented within higher education, expanding the scope of reservations may not be the solution.
In light of these issues, there is a need for policymakers to shift focus from expansion of reservation-based policies towards improving education quality and pursuing other effective social upliftment strategies. A culture of entrepreneurship should be encouraged, transforming job-seekers into job-givers. This approach reaffirms the necessity for comprehensive and inclusive solutions to address socio-economic challenges, rather than relying solely on reservation quotas.