EWS Quota
GS PAPER 2: Polity
Important for
Prelims: Articles, Supreme Court Judgment
Mains: Up to what extent EWS plays an important role in eliminating economic backwardness?
Context
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, hearing petitions against the 10 per cent quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government jobs and admissions, will examine whether the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, by which it was introduced, violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
What is meant by reservation?
In simple terms, reservation in India is all about reserving access to seats in government jobs, educational institutions, and even legislatures to certain sections of the population.
Background of Reservation
- William Hunter and Jyotirao Phule in 1882 originally conceived the idea of caste-based reservation system.
- The reservation system that exists today, in its true sense, was introduced in 1933 when British Prime-Minister Ramsay Macdonald presented the ‘Communal Award’.
- The award made provision for separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and the Dalits.
- After long negotiations, Gandhi and Ambedkar signed the ‘Poona Pact’, where it was decided that there would be a single Hindu electorate with certain reservations in it.
Mandal Commission
|
Judiciary Views on Reservation
| State of Madras v. Smt.Champakam Dorairajan (1951) case: In this case, the court held that the caste-based reservations violate provisions of Article 15(1). Article 15(1) provides for non-discrimination of State against citizens on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.This resulted in the First Constitutional Amendment. The Parliament amended Article 15 to include provisions of reservation under Article 15(4). |
| M R Balaji v State of Mysore case 1963 and Devadasan v Union of India case 1964: In these cases, the court held that the efficiency of public administration is essential. Further the court asked the government to maintain the reservation to 50%. |
| Indra Sawhney vs Union of India Case 1992: In this, the court held that the reservation should not exceed 50 per cent in total, unless in exceptional circumstances. Further, the Court held to remove the creamy layer among OBCs from the reservation. Apart from that, the Court also held that there should not be reservation in promotions. But the government enacted the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act(CAA) to provide reservation for SCs and STs in Promotion(Article 16(4A)). |
M. Nagaraj vs Union of India case 2006: In this, the court upheld the 77th CAA. But the court also mentioned certain conditions to be maintained in such reservation. Such as,
|
In Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta case of 2018, Supreme Court holds that reservation in promotions does not require the state to collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
|
What is the 103rd Amendment?
The 103rd Amendment inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution to provide up to 10 per cent reservation to EWS other than backward classes, SCs, and STs in higher educational institutions and initial recruitment in government jobs. The amendment empowered state governments to provide reservation on the basis of economic backwardness.
Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The additional clauses gave Parliament the power to make special laws for EWS like it does for SCs, STs, and OBCs.
The EWS reservation was granted based on the recommendations of a commission headed by Major General (retd) S R Sinho.
Eligibility for EWS Reservation
What is the basis of the challenge/Concerns to the 103 rd amendment?
- The primary argument is that the amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution. Although there is no clear definition of basic structure, any law that violates it is understood to be unconstitutional.This argument in the present case stems from the view that the special protections guaranteed to socially disadvantaged groups is part of the basic structure, and that the 103rd Amendment departs from this by promising special protections on the sole basis of economic status.
- The petitioners have also challenged the amendment on the ground that it violates the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Indra Sawhney & Ors v Union of India, which upheld the Mandal report and capped reservations at 50 per cent. The court had held that economic backwardness cannot be the sole criterion for identifying a backward class.
- Another challenge is on behalf of private, unaided educational institutions. They have argued that their fundamental right to practise a trade/ profession is violated when the state compels them to implement its reservation policy and admit students on any criteria other than merit.
- Economist Rajesh Ramachandran, Deshpande shows that under the current income limit for EWS reservation, more than 98% of the population qualifies, i.e., almost everyone is eligible for EWS reservation. If EWS reservations are filled first, the outcome would be the same as treating EWS positions as open positions.
What has been the government’s stand in this matter so far?
- In counter affidavits, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment argued that under Article 46 of the Constitution, part of Directive Principles of State Policy, the state has a duty to protect the interests of economically weaker sections: “The state shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.”
- Against the argument of violation of the basic structure, the government said that “to sustain a challenge against a constitutional amendment, it must be shown that the very identity of the Constitution has been altered”.
- On the Indra Sawhney principle, the government has relied on the SC’s 2008 ruling in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v Union of India, in which the court upheld the 27 per cent quota for OBCs. The argument is that the court accepted that the definition of OBCs was not made on the sole criterion of caste but a mix of caste and economic factors; thus, there need not be a sole criterion for according reservation.
What if the current income limit of the EWS category is changed (lowered)?
That would change the calculus somewhat since poorer individuals from all social groups (including non-SC-ST-OBC) would be eligible. In this scenario, the richer (above the presumed new income cut-off) SC-ST-OBC individuals will be eligible only for the social group-based VR positions. However, changing income limits is likely to open a whole new Pandora’s Box, especially in the absence of reliable income data. Realistically, shifting the income cut-off for EWS seems unlikely.
Conclusion
Ambiguities in reservation rules have led to court cases, leading to long delays in filling up positions. Given the enormity of the unemployment situation, as well as the importance of addressing social cleavages, the urgency of working out an optimal implementation strategy cannot be overstated.