Daily Editorial Analysis for 16th September 2022

Arbitrary, exclusionary

GS Paper 2: Government policies and intervention, Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population by centre and states

Important for

Mains exam: Question of economic backwardness in reservation

Context

The five-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit, is considering the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides the 10% reservation to economically weaker sections (EWS) of society in government jobs and educational institutions.

Key issues with the amendment

The supreme court bench has finalised three issues for hearing

• whether the amendment has breached the Constitution’s basic structure by permitting the state to make special provisions;
• whether it does so in relation to admissions to private unaided institutions and
• if the exclusion of OBC/SC/ST communities from the scope of the quota tramples on the basic structure.

Criticism of the 103^rd amendment

• The 103rd amendment was criticised on the ground that the legislation of the reservation in 2019 was done hastily without due diligence of the criteria adopted.
• The setting of an annual family income of ₹8 lakh as a ceiling to determine if someone belongs to the EWS is problematic., because If we consider the available consumer expenditure surveys such as the NSSO report, ‘Key Indicators of Household Consumer Expenditure, 2011-12’, a large chunk of the population will be eligible for reservations in the “below Rs. 8 lakh” EWS category and not just the truly deserving sections of the poor.
• Even the government-appointed committee report which suggested that this ceiling was reasonable, could not adequately explain how the income criterion was “more stringent” than the one for the OBC creamy layer.
• The ₹8 lakh figure did not correspond to any data on the estimated number of EWS persons in the population with incomes related to it.
• One more criticism is that the net effect of the exclusion of Backward Classes and SC/ST aspirants from the EWS has been that they are now denied an opportunity to compete in the general category to the extent of 10%, in effect, limiting the quota to the “forward classes”.
  • Excluding people of certain communities from this benefit despite their belonging to the EWS renders the legislation discriminatory.

Conclusion

If an income criterion for identifying the economically weaker sections has to be the basis, it must arrive at a clearly determined figure for the limit unlike the ₹8 lakh figure, and all sections of society, irrespective of caste, should be eligible to avail of reservation under this category.