Reservation Solely Based On Economic Criteria Does Not Violate Basic Structure Of Constitution : Supreme Court In EWS Quota Case

The Supreme Court by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment, which was concurred with by the Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit. Reflecting upon the argument of the petitioners that for affirmative action the Constitution of India contemplates social and educational backwardness and not economic disadvantage alone, the majority judgment, largely, held that economic criteria as the sole basis for affirmative action does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Bhat concurred with the majority opinion to the extent that economic criteria can be a basis for affirmative action with respect to affirmative action under Article 15 of the Constitution (such as reservation in education). Justice Maheshwari: In order to emphasize on the realities of egalitarian socio-economic order, Justice Maheshwari referred to the United Nations General Assembly resolution dated 25.09.2015 setting eradication of poverty in all its forms everywhere as one of its primary goals. He opined that when poverty is not merely a state of stagnation but is a point of regression, enabling provisions ought to find their way into the Constitutional framework. He notes that the Apex Court in its previous judgments on social justice had been gilded by the jurisprudence evolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in view of amendments made to their Constitution on the basis of economic consideration. Justice Maheshwari, thus, highlighted the economic backwardness of citizens as the sole ground for affirmative action. He added - "Any civilized jurisdiction differentiates between haves and have-nots, in several walks of life and more particularly, for the purpose of differential treatment by way of affirmative action." In order to examine the proposition - whether economic criteria as the sole basis for affirmative action is violative of the basic structure doctrine, Justice Maheswari referred to a catena of judgments of the Apex Court. He pointed out that in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala And Anr, the Apex Court had held welfare state to be one of the main objectives of the Constitution. He observed that in its effort to ensure all-inclusive social-economic justice, the State cannot deny affirmative action to the economically disadvantaged merely because they are not suffering from any other disadvantages. Reliance was placed on M.R. Balaji And Ors. v. State of Mysore And Ors., to note that the Court had stated that affirmative action must be based on an objective approach, free from external pressures, and intended to do social and economic justice. He referred to R. Chitralekha And Anr. v. State of Mysore And Ors., where the definition of 'backwardness' acknowledged by the Apex Court was devoid of any caste consideration, but included criteria like, occupation, income and other economic factors. It was asserted that mere exclusion of caste would not render a classification unconstitutional if it satisfies the other tests. Janki Prasad Parimoo And Ors. v. State of J&K And Ors. was also relied upon, wherein the Apex Court had noted that India social and educational backwardness is associated with economic backwardness. He emphasised on the observation of CJ, AN Ray in State of Kerala And Anr. v. N.M. Thomas And Ors. on substantive equality; that equality of opportunity for unequals furthers inequality. And thus, differential treatment in standard of selection falls within the concept of equality. Justice Ray had also noted that the Government's affirmative responsibility to eliminate social, economic and other inequalities is crucial to the Constitutional law. Justice M.H. Beg had also stated that the legislature ought to endeavour to eliminate socio-economic inequalities. Justice Maheshwari highlighted the observation of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, that DPSP casts a responsibility on the State to take care of educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people. Justice Iyer had noted - "The scheduled castes and scheduled tribes have earned special mention in Article 46 and other 'weaker sections', in this context, means not every 'backward class' but those dismally depressed categories comparable economically and educationally to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes." Justice Maheshwari quoted Justice Ranganath Mishra, who in M/s. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan K. Totame And Ors. had said - "Undoubtedly, apart from the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there would be millions of other citizens who would also belong to the weaker sections. The Constitution-makers intended ...

Reservation Solely Based On Economic Criteria Does Not Violate Basic Structure Of Constitution : Supreme Court In EWS Quota Case

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags