CASE COMMENT ON Janhit Abhiyan v. State of Maharashtra

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Parliament of India adopted the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, incorporating Articles 15(6) and 16(6) into the Constitution. Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the general category, or those not covered by the current reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), were given 10% reservation in educational institutions and public employment under these provisions.
In addition to the current 50% reservation cap set by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, the modification permitted the EWS quota. Janhit Abhiyan was one of several petitioners who contested the constitutionality of this change, claiming that:

1. According to the previous precedent, economic factors by themselves cannot serve as a basis for reserve.
2. Article 14 (Right to Equality) is violated when SC, ST, and OBC applicants are excluded from the EWS quota.
3. The fundamental framework of the Constitution is violated when the 50% reservation cap is exceeded.
   As part of the fundamental structure theory established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225, the petitioners argued that the change violated the equality law and social justice principles.
   A five-judge Constitutional Bench was established by the Supreme Court of India to decide the case.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

• Whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 contradicts the core framework of the Constitution of India, notably the values of equality and social justice.
• Whether reservations made only on the basis of economic factors are allowed under the Constitution under Articles 15 and 16.
• Whether Article 14 (Right to Equality) is violated by the exclusion of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) from the EWS reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6).
• Whether the amendment changes the fundamental principles of the Constitution by upsetting the identity and purpose of Articles 15 and 16; whether exceeding the 50% ceiling limit on reservations, as established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, constitutes a violation of the basic structure doctrine.

CONTENTIONS

Argument of petitioner:

1. Basic Structure Doctrine Violation:
   The petitioners contended that by violating the equality law and the 50% reservation cap established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment broke the fundamental framework of the Constitution. 

They contended that Articles 15(6) and 16(6) distort the fundamental purpose of Articles 15 and 16, which focus on social and educational backwardness and not economic factors alone.

2. Economic factors cannot serve as the only justification for a reservation.
   Based on Indra Sawhney, the petitioners argued that because reservations are intended to address systemic and historical injustices, economic disadvantage by itself cannot support affirmative action in the form of reservations.
3. Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS Reservation Violates Article 14:
   The exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota was said to be arbitrary and discriminatory, infringing the right to equality under Article 14.
4. Violating the 50% Reservation Cap:
   The petitioners argued that going above the 50% threshold damages public administration efficiency and merit by causing imbalance and undermining court precedents.

Argument of respondent:

1. The ability of Parliament to amend the Constitution:
   The Union of India argued that the 103rd Amendment does not violate the fundamental framework of the Constitution and that Parliament has the legislative authority to change it under Article 368.
2. Economic Factors Are a Reliable Foundation:
   Economic disadvantage, it was maintained, is a genuine kind of deprivation, therefore economic criteria-based reservation satisfies the goal of substantive equality.
3. No Exclusionary Violation of Article 14:
   Since SC, ST, and OBC populations already benefit from current reservations, it is sense to exclude them from the EWS quota. If they were included, the goal of EWS would be defeated since they would receive two advantages.
4. The respondents contended that appropriate exceptions can be granted to further equality and justice, and that the 50% cap is not an unbreakable norm.

RATIONALE:

The Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, confirmed the constitutional legality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, saying that it does not undermine the core framework of the Constitution. The majority and minority opinions gave out comprehensive rationales:

Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi, and J.B. Pardiwala’s majority opinion: 

1. Economic factors as a legitimate justification for reservations
   The Court ruled that the Constitution does not forbid reservation based on economic factors and that economic backwardness is a valid justification for affirmative action.
   Promoting substantive equality is the aim of Articles 15(6) and 16(6), which is consistent with the spirit of the Preamble and Part III of the Constitution.
2. SC, ST, and OBC Exclusion Is Not Discriminatory:
   Since SCs, STs, and OBCs already enjoy the benefits of current reservations, the Court reasoned that denying them access to EWS reserves does not violate Article 14.
   The distinction between non-EWS (SC/ST/OBC) and EWS (from the general group) is logical and founded on distinguishable differences.
3. The 50% ceiling is not set in stone.
   According to the ruling in Indra Sawhney, the 50% reservation cap is not a fundamental component and may be lifted under specific circumstances, particularly by amending the constitution.
4. Modification Within the Authority of Parliament:
   The 103rd Amendment does not repeal or destroy the fundamental framework; rather, it falls within the modifying authority granted to Parliament by Article 368.

Justices S. Ravindra Bhat, U.U. Lalit, and C.J. concurring in the dissenting opinion: 

1. Economic criteria alone are insufficient
   According to Justice Bhat, reservations are intended to address structural disadvantage and past social injustice rather than just economic distress.
   The purpose of Articles 15 and 16 is distorted when economic criteria are used as the only justification for reserve.
2. SC, ST, and OBC exclusion violates the Equality Code:
   Since it contradicts Article 14 and the fundamental structure, the total exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS reservation was ruled to be illegal.
3. Integral to equality is a 50% cap:
   According to Justice Bhat, violating the 50% cap modifies the fundamental structure’s balance between equality and reservation policy.

DEFECTS OF LAW

Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Janhit Abhiyan v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 1 SCC 1 (India) upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment’s 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), it also created serious legal flaws and ambiguities in India’s affirmative action framework.

1. Violating the 50% Ceiling Without a Valid Reason
   In order to maintain meritocracy and administrative effectiveness, the Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, capped the number of reservations at 50%.
   Without clearly establishing constitutional protections or rules, the Janhit Abhiyan ruling permits breaking this restriction, creating ambiguity and possibly encouraging unrestrained reservation growth.
2. Economic Factors as the Only Justification for Reservation
   Reservations under Articles 15 and 16 have historically been used to alleviate social and educational backwardness, which is mostly caused by systemic and historical discrimination.
   Allowing economic status as the only justification for a reservation deviates from the meaning of the constitution and warps the essence of affirmative action. Since there was no strong rationale for this change, the social justice concept ran the risk of being undermined.
3. SCs, STs, and OBCs are arbitrarily excluded from the EWS quota.
   According to Article 14 (Right to Equality), it is factually inaccurate and constitutionally dubious to completely exclude SC, ST, and OBCs from the EWS reservation on the grounds that they do not experience economic hardship.
   Since there was no factual support for this general exclusion, it violates the requirement of reasonable categorization and leads to intra-class discrimination.
4. Inadequate Institutional Processes and Standards for EWS Recognition
   The absence of universal standards or legislative guidelines for identifying EWS status is left up to executive discretion and is not addressed in the ruling. This undermines openness and equity by allowing for arbitrary decision-making, political interference, and uneven application of EWS criteria.
5. Prior to Uncertainty
   The Court’s strategy creates uncertainty in the legal criteria regulating reservations by subtly deviating from the binding precedent in Indra Sawhney without overturning it outright.
   The predictability and coherence of Indian constitutional law may be impacted by the jurisprudential discrepancy this produces.

INFERENCE

1. Economic factors acknowledged as a legitimate foundation for reservations:
   For the first time, the Supreme Court expressly acknowledged economic disadvantage as a legitimate constitutional basis for granting reservations in public employment and education. This broadens the application of affirmative action under the Indian Constitution and represents a paradigm change away from the conventional emphasis on social and educational backwardness.
2. The Court ruled that the 50% ceiling rule on reservations, which was put in place in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, is not unchangeable and can be loosened via constitutional amendment. Although this may raise questions about efficiency and meritocracy, it does pave the way for future increases in reservation quotas, so long as they are supported by constitutional authority.
3. Upheld: The ruling emphasizes that although Parliament has extensive authority to change the Constitution under Article 368, this authority is constrained by the fundamental structure concept. Nonetheless, the Court decided that economic reservation did not go against the fundamental framework, so bolstering Parliament’s flexibility in tackling novel types of disadvantage.
4. Emphasis on Substantive Equality Over Formal Equality: The majority accepted the idea of substantive equality by approving the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS quotas. They held that unequal treatment is acceptable where it is intended to address particular disadvantages. This is an example of how Article 14 is applied contextually, prioritizing equality above consistency
5. Future Legal Uncertainty and Judicial Divergence: The split ruling (3:2) emphasizes the differences in opinion among judges about economic reservation and whether or not it complies with the equality legislation. Future benches could be asked to reexamine these issues, according to the dissenting views, especially if reservation programs continue to grow.

The Janhit Abhiyan verdict expands India’s affirmative action framework by establishing that economic factors can constitutionally support reservations. The ruling does, however, leave open for future judicial and legislative consideration important issues about reserve limits, the exclusion of backward classes, and conformity with prior rulings.

.
Aradhya Singh

Asian Law College, Noida