In a significant victory for the government, the Supreme Court today upheld a 10% employment and educational quota for the underprivileged, or EWS (Economically Weaker Sections), which was put in place right before the 2019 general elections. Three of the five judges ruled in favour of the EWS quota, stating that it did not violate the law.
Top 10 Points on Verdict
1. The quota is not discriminatory and does not alter the fundamental structure of the constitution, according to a majority of the Supreme Court constitution bench. Chief Justice UU Lalit, who retires tomorrow, was one of two judges who dissent.
2. The other dissenting judge, Justice Ravindra Bhat, stated that while he supported quotas for the economically disadvantaged, the constitution prohibits the exclusion of the socially disadvantaged. "I regret not being able to agree with the majority. Our constitution does not use exclusionary language. In my opinion, the addition of exclusionary language weakens the fabric of social justice and thus the fundamental structure," as per Justice Bhat.
3. According to the Chief Justice: "I agree with Justice Bhat's position. The final decision is at 3:2."
4. The ruling BJP hailed the historic decision, which comes ahead of key elections in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, as a victory for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "mission" to provide social justice to the country's poor.
5. The EWS quota was introduced through the 103rd constitutional amendment and approved by the Centre in January 2019, shortly after the BJP lost elections in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh. It was immediately overturned by the Supreme Court.
6. The quota avoided affirmative action, which benefits traditionally marginalised communities in Indian society, such as the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). Petitions questioned how the quota could exceed the Supreme Court's 1992 national cap of 50% reservation and whether it altered the constitution's "basic structure." According to the petitioners, the quota was "a deceptive and backdoor attempt to destroy the concept of reservation."
7. The government argued that the quota would help people get out of poverty while not reducing existing reservations for backward classes or reducing seats for the general category.
8. The law was not opposed by opposition parties, including Congress. However, the Supreme Court heard 40 petitions against it, including one from Tamil Nadu, the state with the highest reservation in the country.
9. Tamil Nadu's government The ruling was criticised by the DMK, with Chief Minister MK Stalin calling it a setback to the fight for social justice. However, parties such as Tejashwi Yadav's RJD have called for an immediate caste census.
10. One of the judges, Justice JB Pardiwala, stated in court that reservation should not be extended indefinitely so that it becomes a vested interest. "Those who have advanced should be removed from backward classes so that those in need can be assisted. The methods for determining backward classes need to be reconsidered so that they remain relevant in today's world "stated the judge.
