Reservation to SC/ST, SEBC under Articles 15, 16 not part of basic structure of Constitution: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari in EWS case

Provisions in Articles 15 and 16 enabling reservation for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) do not form part of the basic structure of the Constitution, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held on Monday in the case relating to reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) [Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors.]..Justice Maheshwari, therefore, held that the exclusion of SC/ST, SEBC/ Other Backward Classes (OBC) from EWS reservation is not at odds with the constitutional scheme or the equality code. "It is beyond doubt that using the doctrine of basic structure as a sword against the amendment in question and thereby to stultify State’s effort to do economic justice as ordained by the Preamble and DPSP and, inter alia, enshrined in Articles 38, 39 and 46, cannot be countenanced. This is essentially for the reason that the provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, providing for reservation by way of affirmative action, being of exception to the general rule of equality, cannot be treated as a basic feature," he held....the provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, providing for reservation by way of affirmative action, being of exception to the general rule of equality, cannot be treated as a basic feature.Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.In his judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, Justice Maheshwari further observed that keeping out the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from the EWS Quota does not damage the basic structure of the Constitution."Exclusion of the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections, being in the nature of balancing the requirements of nondiscrimination and compensatory discrimination, does not violate Equality Code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India," the judgment stated..Therefore, he held that the basic structure doctrine cannot be used to strike down the amendment as the reservation provided as per Articles 15 and 16 cannot be treated as a basic feature of the Constitution..Recognising that the normal process of development benefits only those sections of society that already possess land, education, and social status, Justice Maheshwari opined that economic backwardness can be the sole ground for providing reservation by affirmative action.Further, he held that even if reservation is one of the features of the Constitution, it is only an enabling provision that cannot be regarded as an essential feature whose modulation, for the sake of other valid affirmative action, would damage the basic structure of the Constitution. "In this background, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India," Justice Maheshwari held..Reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India.Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.Pertinently, Justice Maheshwari observed that the breach of 50 percent ceiling (laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney) for reservation is applicable only for reservation with respect to socially backward classes under Article 16(4) and 16(5) of the Constitution.“Reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent, in addition to the existing reservations does not result in violation of any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India on account of breach of the ceiling limit of fifty per cent. because, that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India,” the judgment said..He also observed that the 103rd amendment is essentially related to the requirements of those economically weaker sections who have, until now, not been the beneficiaries of the kind of reservation that which was accorded to the other class/classes of citizens namely, the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs. Therefore, he said,"Viewing this affirmative action of EWS reservation from the standpoint of backward class versus forward class is not in accord with the very permissibility of compensatory discrimination towards the goal of real and substantive justice for all.".[Read Judgment]