1. FACTS
The case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India is one of the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019. This amendment brought about 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government employment and higher education. Importantly, this quota was for those not covered by the current reservations of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The amendment added two new clauses to the Constitution: Article 15(6) and Article 16(6), both providing for EWS reservations.
This amendment was introduced into effect by the Government of India with the justification of countering economic disadvantages that do not stem from caste or community associations. It was largely welcomed by the central government as a step toward inclusive economic growth.
Nevertheless, a number of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were initiated, among them by the petitioner Janhit Abhiyan, challenging the amendment on the ground of its constitutional validity. The primary concerns were that the amendment infringed on the basic structure of the Constitution by adding economic considerations as the only ground for reservation and by going beyond the 50% limit on overall reservations set in the milestone Indra Sawhney case (1992).
The matter was argued before a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. It generated a lot of interest because of its implications on India’s reservation policy, especially the manner in which it redefines affirmative action.
In a 3:2 majority ruling rendered on November 7, 2022, the Supreme Court affirmed the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. The majority held that the extension of reservations on economic grounds and the exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs from the EWS category was not against the basic structure of the Constitution. But the dissenting judges pointed out that such exclusion went against the ideals of equality and social justice.
The case therefore becomes a milestone in India’s constitutional and social history, probing the changing facets of affirmative action within a complicated socio-economic context.
2. ISSUES RAISED
The key issues raised in the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India were crucial to constitutional law and the doctrine of social justice. They concerned whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution, and whether economic criteria alone can form a legitimate ground for reservations in India. The following are the principal issues analyzed:
Is the 103rd Constitutional Amendment violative of the basic structure doctrine? The basic structure doctrine, as enunciated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holds that some of the fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended even by way of an amendment. Petitioners had argued that reservations are a means of curing social and educational backwardness, and not economic backwardness alone.
Is the amendment against Article 14 (Right to Equality)? The amendment specifically excludes SCs, STs, and OBCs from the advantages of EWS reservation, even though individuals belonging to these groups come under the economic criterion. Petitioners contended that it amounts to an unreasonable classification, breaching the principle of equality.
Can reservation be on purely economic grounds?
Indian reservation policy hitherto was grounded in social and educational backwardness. The amendment changed this to an economic ground, and there is some doubt regarding the constitutionality of such a change.
Does the amendment violate the 50% quota cap on reservations? The Indra Sawhney judgment put a cap of 50% on reservations so as to maintain merit and equality. The 10% EWS quota brings the overall reservation to about 60%, and the question arises if this is a violation of constitutional restrictions.
Can reservation be provided to private unaided institutions? The amendment permits the state to make special provisions for EWS in private unaided institutions (other than minority-managed institutions). This involved a question whether the autonomy of such institutions under Article 19(1)(g), which provides the right to practice any profession or engage in any occupation, would be affected.
These questions constituted the basis for strict constitutional review by the Supreme Court, which eventually ratified the amendment but not without some dissenting opinions expressing sound counterarguments.
3. CONTENTION
In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, both the petitioners and the respondents had strong and elaborate contentions based on constitutional principles.
Petitioners’ Contentions:
Offence to Basic Structure: Petitioners argued that the 103rd Amendment is against the basic structure of the Constitution. Reservation purely on economic grounds, as per them, goes against the constitutional philosophy of affirmative action based on historical disadvantage, social and educational backwardness.
Exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs: They believed that their exclusion from the EWS quota, even if economically poor, is discrimination and against Article 14. Exclusion was viewed as forming a new class among the economically poor and thus defeating the purpose of equality.
Overstepping the 50% Ceiling: The petitioners highlighted that the Indra Sawhney judgment had established a 50% ceiling on reservations. The 103rd Amendment, in providing an additional 10% over existing reservations, oversteps this ceiling, which they alleged violates the rule of law and the basic structure.
Effect on Private Institutions: Petitioners felt that the extension of reservations to private unaided institutions violates their autonomy under Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees freedom to pursue any profession or engage in any occupation.
Contentions of the Respondents:
Affirmative Action on the Basis of Economic Deprivation: The Union of India maintained that economic deprivation is a sound foundation for affirmative action. Article 46 of the Directive Principles directs the state to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections.
Exclusion is Warranted: The government said that SCs, STs, and OBCs are already enjoying reservations. The EWS quota is meant for the economically backward among the unreserved category.
50% Limit Not Sacrosanct: The 50% limit is not a constitutional provision but a judicially developed principle, which can be relaxed in exceptional situations.
Right to Education and Social Justice: It was argued for extending EWS reservation to the private sector as a measure justifying access for all to education, in alignment with the pursuit of social justice and inclusion.
These oppositional arguments prove the intricacies and philosophical contradictions in understanding the Indian Constitution’s guarantees of justice and equality.
4. RATIONALE
The rationale for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India was complex, weighing constitutional interpretation against social realities. The ruling was handed down in a 3:2 majority, with the majority sustaining the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.
1. Economic Criteria as a Valid Basis
Most of them opined that economic backwardness is a valid reason for affirmative action. They contended that Article 46 of the Directive Principles of State Policy invites the state to assist the weaker sections in their economic interests. Therefore, reservation on economic grounds does not offend the basic structure.
2. No Violation of Equality Principle
The Court’s rationale was that exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota cannot be termed discriminatory since these classes already have coverage under other schemes of reservation. The EWS quota was put in place to benefit economically weaker sections not included under any existing quota, thereby ensuring balance.
3. 50% Ceiling Not Absolute
Whereas the Indra Sawhney case had established a 50% threshold, the majority pointed out that the same was not a strict or unbending rule. The Court believed that the 50% limit can be violated in extraordinary circumstances, and the constitutional amendment had created such an exception.
4. Private Institutions and Public Interest
The Court affirmed the applicability of EWS reservation in private unaided schools. It reiterated that education is a public good and the state can make provisions for access to education by affirmative action even in private schools.
5. No Damage to Basic Structure:
Most of them opined that the amendment does not change the basic structure. Rather, it extends the ambit of affirmative action to cover economic disadvantage, in line with the constitutional ideals of equality and justice.
But the two dissenting judges, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, contended that the amendment subverts the basic structure by leaving out the poor among SCs, STs, and OBCs and violating the 50% reservation limit.
The reasons cited by the majority articulate a wider and changing view of affirmative action in India.
5. DEFECTS OF LAW
Despite the Supreme Court’s majority verdict in favor of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, several legal and conceptual defects were highlighted during the case and persist post-judgment.
Economic Criteria and Historical Disadvantage:
Historical oppression and systemic discrimination are the bases of traditional reservation policy in India. Moving the focus to economic status waters down the initial purpose of affirmative action. Economic deprivation is temporary and less systemic than discrimination based on caste, which has profound social roots.
Exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs
The direct exclusion of already minority communities from the EWS quota has been considered by most legal minds as going against the fundamental principle of equality. It supposes a leveled field which isn’t the reality and goes against the equal protection clause of Article 14.
Violation of the 50% Cap
The 50% ceiling to reservations was adopted to save meritocracy and promote efficiency in administration. Permitting exceptions to this principle without specifying what amounts to “extraordinary circumstances” invites arbitrary enlargements of quota policy.
Effect on Merit and Efficiency:
Increasing reservations above 50% could further shrink the scope for open category candidates, impacting meritorious selections and administrative efficiency, which are crucial under Article 335.
Vagueness and Lack of Clarity:
The amendment fails to specify what economic weakness means. The existing criterion is arbitrary and does not take into consideration regional variations in income and cost of living.
Burden on Private Institutions:
Granting reservation mandates to private unaided institutions without providing compensation or relief from the government can result in financial burden and deter private sector involvement in higher education.
These flaws imply that even as the amendment seeks to ensure economic justice, its implementation may generate fresh inequalities and implementation issues.
6. INFERENCE
The Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India case is a landmark moment in India’s constitutional and social sphere. It represents a widening of the affirmative action paradigm to cover economic disadvantage, hitherto excluded from the reservation debate in India.
1. Constitutional Flexibility:
The ruling highlights the fact that the Constitution is a dynamic document that can adjust to new socio-economic realities. By upholding economic considerations as a reason for reservation, the Court has widened the sphere of affirmative action beyond its traditional moorings.
2. Changing Concept of Equality:
The case indicates a change in the concept of equality—from formal equality to substantive equality. In recognizing the cause of economically weaker sections of the forward castes, the Court has tried to equalize the field on a wider canvas of society.
3. Debate on Basic Structure:
The case reopens the argument on how far Parliament can go to amend the Constitution. Although the majority upheld the amendment, the dissent emphasized the dangers of leaving traditionally disadvantaged communities behind in the benefits of new policies.
4. Socio-Political Implications:
The decision has enormous political implications. It provides room for fresh classes to avail themselves of affirmative action advantages and hence increase the political constituency of reservation policies. But it can also reduce the specificity of focus on caste-based discrimination.
5. Need for Review and Monitoring
With the concerns of implementation, exclusions, and possible overreach in private institutions, the actual impact of the amendment in the real world must be watched closely. Regular monitoring and policy tweaking might become necessary to guarantee that the aims of social justice are actually fulfilled.
In short, even though the Supreme Court’s decision in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India justifies reservation based on economic criteria, it also insists that this should be accompanied by prudent and balanced policy-making without diluting the constitutional role of social justice.
Presented By Rashi Agarwal
From Manipal University Jaipur