Understanding the Recent Supreme Court Verdict on the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act
The Supreme Court of India has recently referred the petitions challenging the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 to a five-judge constitution bench, on the grounds that it involves ‘substantial questions of law’. Article 145 (3) of the Indian Constitution dictates that cases which involve ‘a substantial question of law as to the interpretation’ of the Constitution must be heard by at least five judges. This rule also applies to any reference under Article 143, which pertains to the power of the President of India to seek advice from the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court bench comprised of at least five judges is called the Constitution bench.
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act Explained
This act introduced an economic reservation (10% quota) in jobs and admissions in education institutes for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). This was accomplished by amending Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, specifically through the insertion of Article 15 (6) and Article 16 (6). The aim of these changes was to promote welfare amongst the poor who were not covered by the existing 50% reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC). Furthermore, this amendment empowers both the central and state governments to offer reservations to the EWS of society.
Opposition to the Amendment: Petitioners’ Arguments
Those opposing the amendments argue that they run contrary to the constitutional scheme, where no portion of available seats/posts can be reserved solely on the basis of economic criteria. They also suggest that the amendments are inconsistent with the judgement pronounced in the Indra Sawhney V. Union of India 1992 case, which stated that backward classes cannot be identified exclusively with reference to economic criteria. Critics also note that the amendments alter the 50% quota limit established in the Indra Sawhney V. Union of India 1992 case, which they argue is an integral part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure. They also assert that reservation in unaided institutions violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which grants every citizen the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
The Central Government’s Stand on the Amendment
The central government argues that this amendment was necessary to benefit EWS individuals who are not covered under existing reservation schemes. According to the government’s data, these individuals constitute a considerably large segment of the country’s population. The government also contends that the 50% limit established in the Indira Sawhney ruling is not applicable in the current petitions, arguing that the Sawhney case addressed governmental memoranda, whereas the present challenge involves a constitutional amendment.
Substantial Legal Questions Involved
Critically, the petitions raise questions regarding whether the challenged 103rd Amendment Act infringes upon the Basic Structure of the Constitution, specifically in relation to its equality provisions. The Union of India’s argument is that though ordinarily 50% is the rule, the Constitution itself can be amended in view of special circumstances to uplift members of society belonging to economically weaker sections. The final decision yet to be made by the court in response to this argument and the petitions will have significant implications for the future interpretation and application of the Indian Constitution.
