EWS Quota Case : Is Reservation For Representation Or Financial Improvement? Highlights From Supreme Court Hearing [Summary Of Arguments, Court Queries]

The Supreme Court verdict determining the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment is to come out on November 7, 2022. The matter was heard by a 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala. As per the cause list, there are two judgments by Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat in the case. It is to be noted that Chief Justice UU Lalit is to retire on 8th November 2022.This article provides with a brief gist of all the arguments raised before the court.Petitioners' ArgumentsI. Reservation a tool for representation, not financial upliftment The arguments which spanned over seven days were commenced by acclaimed academician Dr. Mohan Gopal who appeared for the petitioners in the matter. He argued that the EWS quota inverted the concept of reservation as a tool of representation for the disadvantaged groups and converted it into a scheme for financial upliftment. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora echoed a similar sentiment and submitted that reservations under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution were not aimed at providing economic aid but because backwardness caused to such sections was both the cause and consequence of "non representation in the country." Advocate Shadan Farasat also argued on similar grounds and submitted that originally, reservations were granted solely on an "anti-discrimination basis", and not on an "anti-depravation basis". He stated that this was the basic structure which was being violated by the amendment which granted reservations on the basis on depravation. II. Exclusion of SEBCs violates basic structure Dr. Mohan Gopal submitted that because the EWS quota excluded socially and educationally backward classes and confined the benefits only to the "forward classes", it resulted in the violation of the principles of equality and social justice. This amounted to infringement of the basic structure of the Constitution. Dr. Gopal, in his rejoinder, also argued that socially and educationally backward class (SEBC) was a category that united all categories as backward classes- based on social, economic and political backwardness. He argued that the compartmentalisation of classes; forwardness being required as a pre-requisite for granting reservations and; the letting loose of reservations in the society as a benign welfare activity violently opposed the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar, furthering the submissions for the petitioners, stated that weaker sections had to be understood ejusdem generis Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. He supplemented his argument with the text of Article 46 which states that the State shall promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. As such, these classes could not be excluded from the meaning of weaker sections. On a similar note, Senior Advocate P. Wilson submitted that weaker sections under Article 46 were not the same as those under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) and that the SCs and STs had earned a special mention under Article 46. Advocate Shadan Farasat argued that exclusion of backward classes, when they were in fact poorer than the forward class poor, was a direct violation of the equality code.III. Economic Criteria cannot be the sole criteria to determine backwardnessProf Ravi Verma Kumar also argued that economic criteria could not be the sole criteria to determine backwardness. He stated that a "class" should be homogeneous, should have numerical strength and have its origin in religion. Thus, a person's economic background couldn't determine their class.To this, Justice Bhat had remarked–"Government frames policies which are rested on an economic basis. That classification is recognised by court. Economic criteria is a basis for classification. Its non enumeration in Article 15 means perhaps that it is permissible."Prof Kumar had retorted this question by stating that the amendment was misplaced and that - "You don't take a person suffering from tuberculosis to a maternity ward. If a poor man has a problem, give him money or scholarship. After abolishment of princely states, all princes became paupers. Should they get reservations?"Adv. Shadan Farasat had similarly argued that there were other affirmative actions which could be taken to address the problems faced by economically disadvantaged groups, which did not require providing them with reservations.IV. No "guardrails" for EWS ReservationIn the course of headings, Sr. Adv. Meenakshi Arora had also argued that the 103rd Amendment did not consist of any "guardrails" which otherwise existed for other forms of reservations granted by the Constitution. She submitted that backwardness was required to be determined on multiple factors by...

EWS Quota Case : Is Reservation For Representation Or Financial Improvement? Highlights From Supreme Court Hearing [Summary Of Arguments, Court Queries]

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags