Judgement Briefs

Constitutional Law

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India

(2023) 5 SCC 1

Citation
(2023) 5 SCC 1
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
7 November 2022
Bench
U.U. Lalit C.J.; Dinesh Maheshwari; S. Ravindra Bhat; Bela M. Trivedi; J.B. Pardiwala

Facts

  • Parliament enacted the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019.
  • The amendment inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6).
  • These provisions permitted up to ten per cent reservation for Economically Weaker Sections in:
  • educational institutions; and
  • public employment.
  • The EWS category excluded persons already covered by reservation under:
  • Article 15(4);
  • Article 15(5); and
  • Article 16(4).
  • Consequently, SCs, STs and OBCs could not claim the EWS quota even when economically poor.
  • The amendment permitted reservation in private unaided educational institutions, except minority institutions.
  • Petitioners challenged the amendment on the ground that:
  • economic weakness alone could not support reservation;
  • excluding SCs, STs and OBCs was discriminatory;
  • the additional ten per cent breached the fifty per cent ceiling; and
  • the amendment damaged the equality code forming part of the basic structure.
  • A five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a 3:2 decision.

Issue

  • Whether reservation may constitutionally be based solely on economic disadvantage.
  • Whether excluding SCs, STs and OBCs from EWS reservation violates equality.
  • Whether the additional ten per cent quota violates the fifty per cent ceiling.
  • Whether the 103rd Amendment damages the basic structure.

Rule

  • Majority
  • Reservation is a form of affirmative action that may address different kinds of disadvantage.
  • Economic weakness may constitute a valid basis for a distinct affirmative-action measure.
  • The equality code does not require every disadvantaged group to receive benefits through the same constitutional provision.
  • The fifty per cent ceiling is not an inflexible limit upon every form of reservation created by constitutional amendment.
  • Excluding groups already covered by existing reservation schemes may prevent overlap and does not automatically constitute hostile discrimination.
  • Dissent
  • Economic criteria may support affirmative action.
  • However, excluding poor persons solely because they belong to SC, ST or OBC communities creates constitutionally prohibited discrimination.
  • The exclusion operates on caste status and denies the poorest members of those communities access to an economic reservation.
  • Breaching the fifty per cent ceiling risks converting exception-based reservation into the dominant rule.

Application

  • Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi and Pardiwala formed the majority.
  • They held that the Constitution’s equality guarantee permits different remedies for different disadvantages.
  • Existing reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) address social and educational backwardness and inadequate representation.
  • Articles 15(6) and 16(6) address economic weakness among persons outside those schemes.
  • The exclusion of SCs, STs and OBCs therefore prevented simultaneous access to two separate reservation frameworks.
  • The majority did not treat it as a declaration that every member of those communities was economically secure.
  • It viewed the classification as part of the constitutional design of separate affirmative-action compartments.
  • The majority also held that the fifty per cent ceiling developed in the context of Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
  • A new constitutional provision could create an additional quota without automatically destroying equality.
  • Justice Bhat, joined by Chief Justice Lalit, dissented.
  • The dissent accepted that economic disadvantage could justify special measures.
  • Its objection concerned exclusion.
  • A poor SC, ST or OBC person remained economically weak and could not constitutionally be denied an economic benefit solely because of caste identity.
  • The dissent considered this exclusion damaging to the non-discrimination principle underlying the basic structure.

Conclusion

  • By a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Amendment.
  • Reservation based solely upon economic weakness was constitutionally permissible.
  • Exclusion of SCs, STs and OBCs from the EWS category was upheld.
  • The additional ten per cent quota was held not to violate the basic structure or the fifty per cent ceiling.
  • Chief Justice Lalit and Justice Bhat dissented on the exclusion and ceiling questions.