[BREAKING] Supreme Court upholds validity of 10 percent quota for Economically Weaker Section; CJI UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat dissent

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment which grants 10 percent reservation to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) among the forward castes [Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India and ors]..The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala.There were four separate judgments delivered by the bench with CJI UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat dissenting from the majority opinion. .Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held that EWS quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.“EWS amendment does not violate the basic structure as it is based in economic criteria, state forming special provision for EWS quota does not violate the basic structure,” Justice Maheshwari held.Reservation, he said, is an instrument of affirmative action so as to ensure all-inclusive march towards goals of egalitarian society.“It is a means of inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged. Reservation on economic basis does not violate basic structure of the Constitution,” he said.Pertinently, he ruled that the breach of 50 percent ceiling (laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney judgment) for reservation is applicable only for reservation with respect to socially backward classes under Article 16(4) and 16(5) of the Constitution.“EWS reservation does not violate the equality code or violate essential feature of constitution and breach of 50 percent does not violate basic structure as the ceiling limit is here only for 16(4) and (5),” Justice Maheshwari ruled. .Justice Bela M Trivedi also concurred with Justice Maheshwari by way of a separate judgment.She ruled that the amendment enabling State to make special provision for those other than Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) should be treated as affirmative action by the parliament. "The amendment as a separate class is a reasonable classification. Legislature understands the needs of people and it is aware of the economic exclusion of people from reservation," Justice Trivedi ruled.She also suggested reexamining the concept of reservation."It cannot be gainsaid that age old caste system in India led to introduction of reservations and so that SC/ST get level playing field. At end of 75 years, we need to take a re-look at reservations in general in spirit of transformative constitutionalism," she ruled.Justice JB Pardiwala in his judgment upholding EWS, batted for putting an end to continuance of reservation indefinitely."The ones who have moved ahead should be removed from backward classes so that ones in need can be helped. The ways to determine backward classes need a re- look so that ways are relevant in todays time. Reservation should not continue for indefinite time so that it becomes a vested interest," he said. .Justice Ravindra Bhat in his dissenting judgment held that the amendment is "deluding us to believe that those getting social and backward class benefit is somehow better placed.""This Court has held that 16(1) and (4) are facets of same equality principle. This amendment bestowing double benefits is incorrect. This exclusion violates non discriminatory and no exclusionary facet of the equality code," he held.He said that while reservation on economic basis is permissible, excluding SC/STs and Other Backward classes from EWS cannot be permitted and amounts to discrimination against them."Economic destitution, economic backwardness is backbone of this amendment and on this account amendment is constitutionally indefeasible. However, excluding the classes such as SC/ST, OBC is not constitutionally permissible," he held..In this regard, he also highlighted the Sinho Commission report as per which a large number SC/ST population fell below poverty line. "The Sinho commission was setup to determine economic backwardness and it is based on census of 2001. It says 38% of total SC population and 48% of total ST population was below poverty line. Bulk of economically deprived are these sections," he pointed out.He also did not accept the breach in 50 percent ceiling set by Indra Sawhney. "Permitting breach of 50 percent rule becomes a great way for further infractions which would result in compartmentalisation and then rule of reservation will become right to equality and take us back to Champakam Dorarajam since equality was to be a temporary aspect," Justice Bhat said.Thus, he concluded that while the State can introduce reservation for the economically backward and those who suffer from ill effects of poverty and thus reservation based on economic criteria is not invalid, the present amendment is unconstitutional for excluding SC/ST and OBC. .CJI UU Lalit concurred with Justice Bhat's opinon. .The Supreme Court had on September 27 concluded hearing the batch of pleas challenging the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment that grants 10 percent reservation to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) among the forward castes.The petitions, filed by NGOs Janhit Abhiyan and Youth for Equality, among others, had challenged the amendment on the ground that economic classification cannot be the sole basis for reservation.The Amendment Act provides for reservation of 10 percent seats in public and private educational institutions, and in public employment, for the “economically weaker sections” of citizens other than Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes.During the hearing, the petitioners had contended that the amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution and breaches the overall 50 per cent ceiling of reservation as mandated by the dictum in the Indra Sawhney case.The reservation of 10 per cent seats for EWS other than SC/ST/OBCs is arbitrary and excessive, they had stated.Attorney General for India KK Venugopal had framed the constitutional questions of law for consideration as under:- Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria?- Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided institutions?- Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution in excluding the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation?.Follow our day-wise coverage of the hearings:Day 1Day 2Day 3Day 4Day 5Day 6Day 7[Read a compilation of the written submission in the case here]ead .[Read live coverage of pronouncement of judgment below]