The use of the sole income criterion for the quota is questionable, but it must be made to work in a non-exclusionary manner
The use of the sole income criterion for the quota is questionable, but it must be made to work in a non-exclusionary manner
On the other hand, a new type of reservation in education and jobs based only on income or economic criteria was destined to face many constitutional hurdles. However, given that Special provision in favor of ‘Economically Weaker Section’ (EWS)) of those who are not eligible Community Based Quota for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, was introduced through an amendment to the Constitution, only a demonstration that the new quota violated the basic structure of the Constitution would succeed in removing it. by a majority of three to two, The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the amendment Does not violate infrastructure. In the process, the Court has recorded a major paradigm shift in its concept of what constitutes valid affirmative action. For the first time, it has retained a kind of reservation that specifically excludes three existing categories of beneficiaries and is extended purely on the basis of economic criteria. when in Indira Sawhney (1992)The nine-judge bench upheld OBC reservation but favored exclusion of advanced sections of the beneficiary communities from its purview, introducing a form of economic criterion for the first time. However, criteria were used to exclude individuals, while groups remained eligible for reservation. Also, the Court struck down a provision for 10% reservation for economically backward classes introduced by the Congress rule, on the grounds that the Constitution does not provide Reservation based on economic criteria only,
The rationale behind this plan of affirmative action was that reservation is a tool of compensation for groups excluded from mainstream avenues of advancement due to caste discrimination, while it should not become a benefit or reward for individual members of the same groups who have proper progress. This logic was completely counterproductive in 2019 when the BJP-led regime amended the Constitution to provide reservation purely on economic parameters to sections other than those enjoying reservation under the categories of SC, ST and OBC. . Recourse to economic or income criteria as the sole marker for beneficiary identification is clearly untenable from the point of view of equality of opportunity. All five judges agree that the introduction of the economic criterion does not violate the Constitution. However, Chief Justice of India UU Lalit along with Justice S. Ravindra BhatAgreed, rightly observed that excluding groups already enjoying reservations from access to this new form of affirmative action violates the criterion of equality, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.
The constitutional amendment came with considerable political legitimacy as very few members voted against it. The court could not take it lightly. The majority accepts the power of Parliament to create a new benchmark for affirmative action and a new goal. His opinion wholeheartedly supports the exclusion of communities that benefit from the existing reservation norms, arguing that such exclusion is necessary to achieve the objective of emancipation of the economically weaker sections and if they are included. otherwise, it may undermine the whole idea of providing such reservation. , This approach is clearly flawed as it creates a vertical reservation scheme based on economic weakness, a factor that may apply to all communities, but deliberately excludes a large section. There was some merit in the argument that reservations could not be used as a poverty alleviation measure, and that historically a collective measure for compensatory discrimination in favor of disadvantaged classes could be used to treat individuals based on their low-income levels. The identity cannot be converted to a plan. and provide the same benefits. The existing income norm of ₹8 lakh per annum has already been questioned by the Court in a separate case, as it is liable to result in excessive coverage of the socially advanced sections. When people who are exempted from filing IT returns have only taxable income below ₹2.5 lakh, there is no point in extending the reservation benefits to classes with income up to ₹8 lakh. Also, the majority view that the 50% limit, applicable only to caste-based quota and not to EWS reservation, is constitutionally untenable, as it is a vertical compartment made up of open competition clauses.
Once the idea of using only the economic criterion is accepted in principle, as also by dissenting opinion, it can only be argued that the benefit should have been modified to maximize beneficiaries. . The objective of economic emancipation could have been achieved better if income based reservation had been opened to all sections of the society. The fear that certain classes might occupy a large part of the reservation cake was first partly addressed by the ‘creamy layer’ criterion for backward classes, but it also meant open competition to the affluent among them. will have to compete. There is a clear violation of equality in the introduction of income criteria and their eligibility to avail opportunities of open competition from EWS silos, except for OBCs, SC/ST communities. The government should consider opening up the EWS quota to all communities and keeping the income criteria much lower than the ceiling, perhaps at the same level as the income tax slab, to identify the ‘creamy layer’ so that some poorer sections of the communities, if They can get some residual benefits under the EWS scheme even if they are out of the crowd in the OBC or SC/ST merit list.