New DelhiA five-judge Constitution bench headed by outgoing Chief Justice of India UU Lalit on Monday upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides for 10 per cent reservation to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and government jobs.
The 3:2 verdict was delivered on a batch of 40 petitions filed in 2019, which raised legal questions on the validity of the amendment and whether the reservation violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The petitions included the Centre’s plea to transfer pending petitions challenging the EWS quota from various high courts to the apex court for an official announcement.
Justice Dinesh Maheshwar, Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice JB Pardiwala upheld the judgment, while CJI Lalit held a minority view against the amendment written by Justice Ravindra Bhatt.
After hearing lengthy arguments from both the sides, the bench had reserved its verdict on September 27.
This bench was one of the few Constitution benches that Justice Lalit had set up when he took over as the Chief Justice and its hearing lasted for six and a half days.
103rd Constitution Amendment The President’s assent was received in 2019 to provide 10 per cent reservation for economically weaker sections, but has been opposed since then.
The five-judge bench delivered four judgments, with Justice Dinesh Maheshwari delivering the majority verdict. Reading out his part of the order, Justice Maheshwari said: “This (amendment) does not violate or damage any infrastructure.”
“Reservation is a means of affirmative action by the state to ensure all elusive march towards the goal of an egalitarian society, it is also a means to contain any class or class which is so disadvantageous,” the judge said.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice JB Pardiwala wrote different concurring views, while Justice Ravindra Bhatt wrote for himself and CJI Lalit.
Center Vs Petitioner
The petitioners, paving the way for reservation, had opposed the amendment on the ground that economic parameters cannot be the basis for classification.
Tamil Nadu government was one of the parties objecting to economic reservation. It submitted before the bench that if the apex court upholds such classification, it will have to revisit Indra Sawhney or Mandal. HolocaustWhich validated reservation for Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBCs).
The Center, on its part, claimed that the reservation provided under the 103rd Amendment was different and was given without disturbing the 50 per cent quota earmarked for SEBCs. The government had told the court that the new law giving 10 per cent EWS quota was brought in to promote social equality, providing “equal opportunities in higher education and employment, which are excluded on the basis of economic status”. .
According to the petitioners, reservation is a means of representation of disadvantaged groups, but the EWS quota turned it into a scheme for financial upliftment. The reservation was given purely on anti-discriminatory grounds and not on “anti-devaluation grounds”, the petitioners had argued and argued that the amendment under challenge violates the principle of reservation outlined in the Constitution and the various directions of the apex court. are propounded through decisions.
“EWS reservation is constitutional apart from 50 per cent of all available seats. This is because the ceiling limit is flexible in itself and applies only to caste-based reservations,” Justice Maheshwari said in his opinion.
On his part, Justice Pardiwala observed that “reservation is not the end but a means to secure social and economic justice. It should not be allowed to become vested interests. Reservation for vested interests should not continue indefinitely.”
However, upholding the validity of the amendment, Justice Trivedi urged that at the end of 75 years of independence, the time has come to revisit the system of reservation in the larger interests of the society.
(Edited by Polomi Banerjee)
read also, ‘A democratic force, not contrary to merit’: Why SC retained OBC quota in medical courses?