CASE TITLE: JANHIT ABHIYAN V. UNION OF INDIA

(WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 55 OF 2019)

FACTS:

In this case, on January 9, 2019, the parliament of India introduced amendments to the constitutional articles 15¹ and 16¹. It incorporated articles 15(6)² and 16(6)² to provide reservations for the economically weaker sections (EWS) in educational institutions and job and employment opportunities. This constitutional amendment was named the one hundred and third amendment (103^rd amendment) of the constitution. Since the date of its inception, there have been various controversies surrounding this amendment. This constitutional amendment gave powers to the state to create special provisions for economically weaker sections of society in education and employment and broadened the scope of reservations. After the enactment of this one hundred and third amendment act of 2019, there were several writ petitions filed by the public in challenging the amendment’s constitutionality, and they were claiming that it violated the doctrine of basic structure of the constitution. By implementing this act, the state was given the power to impose reservation provisions for economically weaker sections of the society. The several writ petitions were consolidated and brought under one petition, that is, Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India, by the Supreme Court. 

ISSUES:

1. Is the 103^rd constitutional amendment, which introduced 10% of reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in education and public employment, violate the doctrine of basic structure of the constitution?
2. Is the exclusion of the SC, ST, and OBCs from this amendment valid?
3. Did the amendment violate the 50% cap in the reservation?

PETITIONER CONTENTION: 

• The petitioners argued that the 103^rd constitutional amendment act, 2019, violated the doctrine of the basic structure of the constitution by incorporating articles 15(6)² and 16(6)² of the constitution. They argued that it looked unjust to see privileged sections of the society who were never socially and educationally backward to be represented. They also quoted that the reservations are only for those who are socially and educationally backward and for those who are unrepresented. The reservations concept should not be used by the forward class for their purposes. 
• The petitioners argued that the SC, ST, and OBCs were excluded from this amendment and thus violated the right to equality of the above-mentioned sections. They also mentioned that the SC, ST, and OBCs also belong to the economically weaker sections, and they could not get the benefits of this amendment. They contended that the amendment created a new form of inequality by denying economically disadvantaged individuals from these communities the benefits of the EWS reservation.
• The petitioners argued that the amendment violated the 50% reservation cap. They argued that the 50% cap cannot be breached unless there are exceptional circumstances. The petitioners argued that the amendment violated the 50% cap on reservations established by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case. They contended that exceeding this cap without exceptional circumstances undermined the principle of equality and fairness in the reservation system.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS: 

• The respondents argued that the amendment did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution and that economic criteria could be a valid basis for reservation. They maintained that the amendment aimed to provide affirmative action for economically disadvantaged sections of society, which is in line with the principles of social justice. The attorney general of India said that they fostered the basic structure and did not violate the basic structure. 
• The respondents argued that the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS reservation was justified as these communities already benefit from existing reservations. They maintained that the EWS reservation was intended to address economic disadvantage among the general category, which had not been covered by previous reservations. 
• The respondents argued that the EWS reservation did not violate any past reservations of the SC, ST, and OBCs. The 50% reservation cap can be breached only during exceptional circumstances, and they believed that this amendment was an exceptional circumstance, so they breached the reservation cap as an exceptional circumstance. 

RATIONALE: 

In the Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court’s rationale was divided 3:2. The majority upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, stating that economic criteria are valid grounds for reservations and that the amendment aimed to address economic disadvantage and did not violate the Constitution’s basic structure. They justified the exclusion of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from the EWS quota by noting that these groups already benefit from existing reservations. The majority also argued that the 50% cap on reservations is not an absolute limit and can be relaxed under exceptional circumstances. However, the minority opinion contended that the amendment violated the basic structure by excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs and by breaching the 50% reservation ceiling, thus discriminating against historically disadvantaged communities. This split verdict highlighted differing interpretations of the Constitution’s principles and the application of reservation policies in India.

DEFECTS OF LAW:

The Janhit Abhiyan V. Union of India highlighted several legal defects and concerns with the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. First, the amendment introduced reservations based solely on economic criteria, which was a departure from the traditional basis of social and educational backwardness. Second, the amendment explicitly excluded Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from the EWS reservation, which was seen as discriminatory and contrary to the principles of equality and social justice enshrined in the Constitution. 

Third, the amendment potentially breached the 50% cap on reservations established by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors AIR 2000 SC 498³, with critics arguing that exceeding this cap without exceptional circumstances undermined the principle of equality and fairness in the reservation system. These defects and concerns formed the basis of the legal challenges against the amendment and were central to the Supreme Court’s deliberations in the case. 

INFERENCE: 

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), has expanded the scope of affirmative action to include economic criteria. This marks a shift from the traditional focus on social and educational backwardness to economic disadvantage. The case also highlighted the ongoing debate about the 50% cap on reservations. While the majority opinion held that the cap is not an absolute limit and can be relaxed in exceptional circumstances, the dissenting opinion argued that breaching the cap undermines the principles of equality and fairness. The exclusion of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from the EWS reservation has raised questions about the balance between economic and social criteria in affirmative action policies. 

CITATIONS:

1. Aarushi Mittal, Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, Ipleaders, (28.2.2025, 6:49 pm), https://blog.ipleaders.in/ 
2. Law Bhoomi, https://lawbhoomi.com/ , (28.02.2025, 6:55pm)
3. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/ , (28.02.2025, 6:50pm)
4. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/ , (28.02.2025, 6:57pm)
5. Jyoti Judiciary, https://www.jyotijudiciary.com/  , (28.02.2025, 7:00pm) 

SHAMYUKTHA JAYPRAKASH PERIYANNAN

SASTRA DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, TANJORE: 2^nd year