The 103rd Amendment Act of 2019 was upheld by the Supreme Court and the Court clarified that the amendment did not contravene Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
The Court also stressed the importance of revising the criteria for reservations under the Constitution, highlighting that reservations were not intended to become vested interests for any specific class. The reservation provisions were meant to represent and uplift marginalized sections of society, ultimately striving towards the goal of achieving an egalitarian society.
Brief Facts:
In January 2019, the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, (hereinafter referred to as the “103rd Amendment Act”), was passed and received Presidential approval. This amendment modified Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, introducing provisions for the reservation of economically weaker sections (hereinafter referred to as “EWS”) in society. The new articles, 15(6) and 16(6) allowed for the reservation of economically backward class citizens in educational institutions and public employment, with a cap of 10%. However, opponents of this legislation filed writ petitions before the Supreme Court of India, claiming discrimination on various grounds.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was contended that the purpose of empowering the State to make reservations for marginalized classes was to eliminate a society where certain classes of people were socially and educationally backwards. They argued that the 103rd Amendment Act violated the basic structure of the Constitution, as it included persons who were not socially and educationally backward, and thus amounted to fraud on the Constitution itself, relying on Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 & M.R. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors. 1963 Supp (1) SCR 439.
It was also argued in the past that economic criteria alone cannot be the sole ground for reservation. They relied on landmark judgments to argue that the Legislature had erred in considering "socially or educationally backward" as a ground for reservation instead of "socially and economically backward" while passing the 103rd Amendment Act. They further submitted that the idea behind reservations as envisaged under Articles 15 and 16 was to ensure adequate representation of caste groups that were not adequately represented. However, the amendment failed to consider the aspect of representation of the (EWS), as it provided reservations for those who were already adequately represented in society.
It was contended in the past that the amendment aimed to reward "poor financial behaviours." They argued that the amendment did not address India's economic condition but rather focused on individualistic provisions for economically weak individuals. They further argued that such financial weakness as a ground for the reservation was not based on a class but on an individual basis, which violated Article 14 of the Constitution that allows for reservation for a "class" of people who are on an equal footing. Therefore, they concluded that the 103rd Amendment Act violated the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was contended that a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections would not have affected the 50% limit set for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBC’). Respondents supported this argument by stating that the rights of SEBC, Scheduled Castes (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC’), and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as ‘ST’) were not affected as they were already benefiting from a reservation in areas such as education, public services, legislature, etc. Therefore, reservation for economically weaker sections did not violate the rights of groups that were already provided reservation, and it did not break the Equality Code. It was further argued that the 10% reservation was in addition to the existing reservation for the SEBCs.
Further, it was argued that the 103rd Amendment Act did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution and was in line with the preamble, which aimed to provide economic justice to the citizens of India through reservation for economically weaker sections.
Furthermore, the Respondents vehemently opposed the Petitioners' arguments that the 103rd Amendment Act would exceed the 50% reservation limit set in the Indra Sawhney case (supra). They argued that the 50% reservation was not provided in the Constitution of India and was not considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, any reservation that exceeded the 50% limit should not be considered a violation of the basic structure.
It was also submitted that the right of economically weaker sections as envisaged in the 103rd Amendment Act arose from the right to live a dignified life as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. They argued that poverty affects the dignity of an individual and it was the duty of the State to eradicate poverty and provide a dignified life to economically weaker sections. Finally, the Respondents argued that the Constitution did not prohibit the Legislature from deviating from the traditional approach to achieving economic justice.
Observations of the Court:
The following issues were framed to be adjudicated by the Court:
- Whether reservation, which aims to include socially and educationally backward classes in society, and reservation-based solely on economic criteria, violated the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
- Whether excluding classes covered under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) from receiving reservation benefits as economically weaker sections was a violation of the Equality Code and the basic structure doctrine.
- Whether the reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent, in addition to existing reservations, exceeded the ceiling limit of fifty per cent and violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
The 103rd Amendment Act was upheld as valid by a majority of 3:2 in a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The Court had emphasized the Statements of Objects and Reasons for the Constitution 103rd Amendment Bill, which stated that a significant number of EWS were unable to access quality education due to their economic incapacity, and as a result, they were neither eligible for reservation nor able to afford the best education. Therefore, amending the Constitution to empower the State to make special provisions for the advancement of EWS was deemed reasonable and not violative of Article 14.
It was highlighted that the provision for reservations is merely enabling in nature and hence, it does not form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Further, if the Parliament is making provisions to further socio-economic justice, the same cannot be said to be damaging the basic structure of the Constitution.
It was opined that the exclusion of other classes in the EWS reservations does not abrogate the basic structure and fundamental rights.
Socio-economic justice was held to be one of the main objectives of the Constitution and therefore, the actions of the Government to further the same have to be sanctioned by the Constitution itself.
It was noted that even though reservations could not be availed solely on grounds of economic criteria, the State cannot be restricted to making special provisions for those who fall under EWS.
Dissenting Opinion:
There was a dissenting opinion from the former Chief Justice of India U. U. Lalit and Hon’ble Justice Ravindra Bhat. They held that the 103rd Amendment Act was violative of the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional. Justice R. Bhat remarked that the amendment to Article 15 by inserting clause 6 was unconstitutional as it excluded representation of the poorest sections of society who were socially and educationally backwards, and thus violated the Equality Code. He further held that Article 16(6) was unconstitutional due to the non-inclusion of already socially and educationally backward classes and that providing reservation to the EWS under Article 16 was violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, as Article 16 aimed to address the issue of lack of representation of a particular community/class.
The decision of the Court:
By a majority of 3:2, the Hon’ble Top Court upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment Act.
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice U.U Lalit, Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Hon’ble Justice S.R Bhat, Hon’ble Justice B.M Trivedi & Hon’ble Justice J.B Pardiwala
Case No.: WP (C) 55/2019
Citation No.: 2020 Latest Caselaw 440 SC
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Rajeev Dhawan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, MN Rao & Meenakshi Arora
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. KK Venugopal & Tushar Mehta
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
