Explore the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022), which upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment granting 10% reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Learn about the legal challenges, key issues, and implications for India’s reservation policy.

Introduction to the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and EWS Reservation

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, passed in January 2019, introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in educational institutions and public employment, excluding minority educational institutions. This amendment inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) into the Indian Constitution, enabling economic criteria as a basis for affirmative action.

This historic change led to a constitutional challenge resolved by the Supreme Court of India in the Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India case on November 7, 2022.

Case Background – Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India

Case Details

• Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India

• Judgment Date: November 7, 2022

• Case Citation: 2022 INSC 1175

• Bench: 5-judge Constitution Bench

• Presiding Judges:

  • Uday Umesh Lalit (Chief Justice)

  • Dinesh Maheshwari

  • S. Ravindra Bhat

  • Bela M. Trivedi

  • Jamshed B. Pardiwala

Key Facts of the Case

Before the amendment, reservation percentages were:

• Scheduled Castes (SC) – 15%

• Scheduled Tribes (ST) – 7.5%

• Other Backward Classes (OBC) (non-creamy layer) – 27%

Adding 10% for EWS increased total reservations to 59.5%.

Petitioners Argued That:

1. Economic criteria alone shouldn’t be the basis for reservation.

2. Excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS quota is discriminatory.

3. It violates the 50% ceiling set by the Indra Sawhney case (1992).

4. EWS reservation in private unaided institutions violates the right to equality.

Legal Issues Considered by the Supreme Court

The Court examined three major constitutional questions:

1. Does the 103rd Amendment violate the basic structure doctrine?

2. Is excluding SCs, STs, OBCs from EWS quota unconstitutional?

3. Can the 10% EWS reservation exceed the 50% cap on reservations?

Supreme Court Judgment on EWS Reservation

In a 3:2 majority, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.

Majority View

Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi, and Pardiwala ruled that:

• Economic disadvantage is a valid ground for reservation.

• Excluding backward classes from EWS quota is not discriminatory.

• The 50% ceiling is not rigid and can be exceeded in exceptional cases.

• EWS reservation in private educational institutions is constitutional.

Dissenting View

Chief Justice Lalit and Justice Bhat dissented, stating:

• The amendment violates the basic structure by excluding socially and educationally backward groups.

• It breaks the principle of substantive equality.

• EWS reservations should include the poorest among backward castes.

Key Takeaways from the Verdict

• EWS quota is legally valid, even beyond the 50% ceiling.

• Economic criteria now form a valid basis for affirmative action.

• Private, unaided educational institutions must implement the EWS quota.

• The ruling reshapes the interpretation of equality and reservation policy in India.

Conclusion – A Landmark Moment in Reservation Law

The Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India judgment is a pivotal decision in Indian constitutional law. By affirming the validity of the 103rd Amendment, the Supreme Court of India has made it clear that economic disadvantage deserves recognition in India’s complex social structure.

However, the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS benefits continues to be debated, as it raises critical concerns about equality, inclusion, and caste-based discrimination.