Judicial Review of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (EWS Quota) and its Implications

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, introduced a significant shift in India’s affirmative action policy by providing 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government jobs and educational institutions. This landmark amendment, challenging decades of caste-based reservation paradigms, soon faced intense judicial scrutiny in the Supreme Court. The judicial review of the EWS quota, particularly the verdict in the Janhit Abhiyan case, holds profound implications for India’s social, economic, and political landscape, reshaping the future discourse on equality and affirmative action.

Understanding the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (EWS Quota)

The 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, paved the way for providing reservations to the Economically Weaker Sections. Its core provisions include:

It inserted Clauses (6) in Article 15 and Article 16 of the Constitution, empowering the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens.

It allowed for up to 10% reservation for EWS in admissions to educational institutions, including private unaided institutions (excluding minority educational institutions).

It also provided for up to 10% reservation in initial appointments to posts under the state.

This reservation is in addition to the existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), potentially exceeding the 50% reservation cap established by the Supreme Court.

Background and the Judicial Challenge

The concept of reservation in India traditionally focused on addressing historical social and educational backwardness, primarily through caste-based criteria, as reinforced by the Mandal Commission and the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment. The Indra Sawhney case famously imposed a 50% cap on total reservations and largely excluded economic criteria as the sole basis for reservation.

The 103rd Amendment, aimed at addressing economic disparities across all communities, introduced an entirely new category. This move was challenged in the Supreme Court by various petitioners, collectively known as the Janhit Abhiyan case. The primary grounds for challenge included:

Violation of the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution by introducing economic criteria as the sole basis for reservation.

Breach of the 50% reservation ceiling, deemed a fundamental aspect of the right to equality.

Exclusion of persons belonging to SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota, arguing it created discrimination within the economically weaker sections.

Arguments For and Against the EWS Quota

The Supreme Court heard extensive arguments from both sides before delivering its verdict.

Arguments Against the EWS Quota

It violates the basic structure doctrine by altering the nature of reservation from social and educational backwardness to purely economic criteria.

The 50% reservation cap, a fundamental tenet of equality, is breached without exceptional circumstances.

Excluding SC/ST/OBC from the EWS quota is discriminatory, as economic backwardness can exist across all communities.

The economic criteria (e.g., Rs 8 lakh annual income) are arbitrary and may include affluent individuals from the general category, defeating the purpose.

Reservation is a tool for representation, not poverty alleviation, which should be handled through other welfare schemes.

Arguments in Favor of the EWS Quota

It addresses a significant lacuna in affirmative action by including economically disadvantaged individuals from the unreserved categories.

The 50% cap is not an inviolable rule for new categories of reservation that do not fall under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).

The EWS quota is a progressive step towards ensuring distributive justice and equality of opportunity for all citizens.

Economic backwardness is a legitimate basis for affirmative action, aligning with the Preamble’s goals of justice and equality.

Excluding those already covered by existing reservations ensures that the EWS quota benefits only those truly uncovered and economically vulnerable.

The Supreme Court’s Verdict (Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India, 2022)

On November 7, 2022, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment Act.

Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi, and J.B. Pardiwala formed the majority, affirming that the EWS reservation does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

The majority held that the 50% cap on reservation is not rigid and applies only to reservations for SC/ST/OBC under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).

They also ruled that the exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from the EWS quota is constitutionally valid, as these communities already receive separate benefits.

Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat dissented, arguing that the amendment violated the basic structure by introducing economic criteria as the sole basis and by breaching the 50% cap, which they deemed an essential feature of equality.

Implications of the Verdict

The Supreme Court’s judgment on the EWS quota carries far-reaching consequences across various facets of Indian society and polity.

Legal Implications

Redefinition of Reservation Cap: The verdict redefines the 50% cap, suggesting it may not be absolute for non-caste-based reservations, potentially opening doors for future expansions.

Validity of Economic Criteria: It firmly establishes economic backwardness as a legitimate, independent criterion for affirmative action, alongside social and educational backwardness.

Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine: The decision contributes to the ongoing evolution of the basic structure doctrine, particularly concerning the limits of parliamentary power in amending fundamental rights related to equality.

Future Litigation: It may lead to further legal challenges regarding the specific identification criteria for EWS, or demands for similar economic reservations in other contexts.

Social Implications

Broader Inclusion: The quota aims to address economic disparities among all communities, potentially fostering greater social harmony by including those previously excluded from reservation benefits.

Reduced Discontent: It may alleviate some long-standing discontent among general category communities regarding the lack of affirmative action for their economically disadvantaged members.

Shifting Discourse: The focus of the reservation debate could gradually shift from purely caste-based considerations to a more inclusive economic justice paradigm.

Potential for New Social Divides: Conversely, it could also spark new debates or demands for more nuanced EWS criteria, or create divisions between different sub-groups within the EWS category.

Economic Implications

Access to Opportunities: The EWS quota provides educational and employment opportunities to a new segment of the population, potentially aiding in their economic upliftment.

Impact on Meritocracy: Critics argue it could further dilute merit-based selections, while proponents contend it promotes a more equitable distribution of opportunities.

Competition: The implementation could intensify competition for a smaller pool of unreserved seats and jobs, affecting career prospects for many.

Political Implications

Electoral Strategy: The EWS quota has significant political ramifications, potentially influencing electoral strategies, particularly in states with substantial general category populations.

Policy Focus: It reinforces the political will to implement economically focused affirmative action, potentially leading to more such policies in the future.

Demands for Review: Different political groups might demand a review of the income criteria or the expansion of the EWS category.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the 103rd Constitutional Amendment?

The 103rd Amendment provides 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in the unreserved category. It inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Constitution.

2. What was the main challenge to the EWS Quota in the Supreme Court?

The main challenge argued that the 10% EWS quota violated the basic structure of the Constitution, specifically by breaching the 50% reservation cap and by excluding SC/ST/OBC from its benefits.

3. What was the Supreme Court’s verdict on the EWS Quota?

In November 2022, a 3:2 majority of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 103rd Amendment. The majority ruled that EWS reservation does not violate the basic structure or the 50% cap.

4. How does the EWS quota impact existing reservation policies?

The EWS quota is in addition to existing reservations for SC, ST, and OBC, effectively increasing the total reservation percentage. It also establishes economic backwardness as a valid criterion for affirmative action alongside caste-based criteria.

Stay Updated with Daily Current Affairs 2026