Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)
EWS reservation, 103rd Amendment, equality and the basic structure—explained in easy English.
Quick Summary
This case tested the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment, which introduced up to 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public jobs.
By a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the Amendment. The majority said that economic criteria can be a valid ground for affirmative action, the 50% ceiling is not rigid, and excluding SCs/STs/OBCs from EWS was a reasonable way to target people without any reservation support. The dissent disagreed on exclusion and the ceiling.
Issues
- Does reservation based only on economic criteria violate the Constitution’s basic structure?
- Is excluding SCs/STs/OBCs from EWS benefits discriminatory?
- Does adding up to 10% EWS quota break the 50% reservation ceiling?
- Can EWS quotas apply to private (non-minority) educational institutions?
Rules
- Articles 15(6) & 16(6) (inserted by the 103rd Amendment): allow EWS reservation in education and public employment.
- Equality (Articles 14, 15, 16): permits reasonable classification if it has an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the objective.
- Basic Structure: Parliament cannot damage the core features of the Constitution.
- 50% Ceiling (Indra Sawhney): a general limit, but the majority treated it as flexible in special situations.
Facts (Timeline)
09 Jan 2019: Parliament passed the 103rd Amendment, adding Articles 15(6) and 16(6).
The Amendment created up to 10% EWS reservation in education (except minority institutions) and public jobs.
This was in addition to SC (15%), ST (7.5%), and OBC (27%) quotas, taking the total near 59.5%.
Beneficiaries of existing reservations—SCs, STs, and non-creamy layer OBCs—were excluded from EWS benefits.
Petitions challenged the Amendment, arguing: economic-only reservation is invalid; exclusion is discriminatory; the extra 10% breaks the 50% ceiling; and applying to private institutions violates equality.
The Union defended the law: economic need is a valid ground; Articles 15(6)/16(6) respect equality; and targeting uncovered poor is legitimate.
Arguments
Appellants / Petitioners
- Economic-only reservation violates equality and the basic structure.
- Excluding SC/ST/OBC is discriminatory; poverty cuts across groups.
- Adding 10% breaches the 50% ceiling set in Indra Sawhney.
- Extending to private unaided institutions harms autonomy and equality.
Respondents / Union
- Economic criteria align with the Preamble and Articles 38 & 46.
- Exclusion avoids overlap; SC/ST/OBC already have separate support.
- The 50% limit is not absolute; special needs justify flexibility.
- Regulating private education for inclusion serves public interest.
Judgment
The Court, by 3:2 majority, upheld the 103rd Amendment.
- Economic-only reservation is valid: It promotes economic justice and targets poverty directly.
- Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC is valid (majority view): They are already beneficiaries of other quotas; EWS is meant for those without any reservation.
- 50% ceiling is flexible: In exceptional cases, the ceiling may be crossed to meet pressing needs.
- Private institutions: EWS in non-minority private educational institutions is permissible.
Dissent: The Chief Justice (at the time of hearing) and Justice Bhat disagreed on excluding SC/ST/OBC and warned that diluting the 50% cap risks turning equality into only a system of quotas.
Ratio Decidendi
Economic weakness can be an independent ground for reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6). Excluding groups already covered by other reservations is a reasonable classification to ensure targeted relief. The 50% ceiling is a guideline, not a hard wall, in extraordinary contexts.
Obiter/dissent stressed that poverty intersects with social backwardness; exclusion may undercut equality, and frequent breaches of the 50% norm may erode the equality framework.
Why It Matters
- Shifts reservation policy to include economic disadvantage as a standalone basis.
- Clarifies that the 50% ceiling is flexible in special situations.
- Upholds State power to regulate private education for inclusion goals.
- Sets the tone for future debates on targeting beneficiaries and avoiding overlap.
Key Takeaways
EWS focuses on those without any reservation benefit; hence exclusion of SC/ST/OBC (majority view).
The 50% cap is a rule of thumb; exceptional needs can justify limited departures.
Dissent warns that exclusions and ceiling breaches may weaken equality commitments.
Non-minority private colleges can be asked to reserve seats for EWS under Art. 15(6).
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: E-W-S = Expand, Wall, Select
- Expand: Economic-only reservation is allowed.
- Wall: 50% “wall” is flexible, not fixed.
- Select: Exclude those already covered to target the uncovered poor.
IRAC Outline
Issue: Validity of EWS reservation under the 103rd Amendment and related exclusions/limits.
Rule: Articles 15(6) & 16(6), equality clause, basic structure, and the 50% ceiling principle.
Application: Economic criteria align with constitutional goals; exclusion prevents overlap; special needs justify limited ceiling flexibility; private education can be regulated for inclusion.
Conclusion: Amendment upheld (3:2); dissent objects to exclusion and ceiling dilution.
Glossary
- EWS
- Economically Weaker Sections—persons below set income/asset limits.
- Basic Structure
- Core features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot damage.
- Ceiling (50%)
- General cap on total reservations from Indra Sawhney.
- Reasonable Classification
- Different treatment is allowed if it is logical and goal-linked.
FAQs
janhit-abhiyan-v-union-of-india-2022
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now