'EWS quota fraud on the Constitution, dividing country along caste lines', SC told

The Supreme Court was on Tuesday told that the provision for 10 per cent quota for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in jobs and education, was a fraud on the Constitution, and it went against the basic structure principle, besides dividing the country along caste lines.

A bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, and J B Pardiwala began hearing arguments on petitions filed by NGO 'Janhit Abhiyan' and others challenging the validity of the 103rd constitutional amendment, enacted in 2019 to provide a 10 per cent quota to EWS in government jobs and admissions.

Legal scholar G Mohan Gopal, representing some petitioners, claimed that the amendment is an attack on the constitutional vision of social justice.

The EWS quota inverted the concept of reservation as a tool of representation for the disadvantaged groups and converts it into a scheme for financial upliftment. Since the EWS quota excluded socially and educationally backward classes and confines the benefits only to the "forward classes", it resulted in violation of the principles of equality and social justice and amounts to infringing the basic structure of the Constitution, he said.

Explained | Supreme Court’s three-question test for validity of 10% EWS quota

"We must see 103rd amendment as an assault on the constitution. It seeks to nullify, and neutralise the constitutions idea of treating unequals unequally, stabbing the constitution in heart," he said.

Gopal pointed out in his home state, Kerala, he is not happy to say that the government issued an order for EWS and the title was 'caste' and they were all most privileged castes in the country.

He submitted that social and educational backwardness are two wings on which reservations are relied and if removed, it would crash.

He vehemently argued that the amendment will change the identity of the Constitution in the minds of people as something, which protects the privileged instead of the weak. He added that there are structural conditions, which keep certain communities poor and reservation was introduced to give representation in education and government jobs.

He also maintained that reservation is only needed to ensure representation so that it does not eat up equality in opportunity, which is the concern of the backward classes.

Gopal submitted the EWS quota excludes socially and educationally backward classes and only forward classes receive the benefits, and it results in violation of the principles of social justice and equality, which infringes the basic structure of the Constitution.

If this was really an economic reservation, it would be given to poor people irrespective of their caste, he said.

"We are not interested in reservation….interested in representation. If someone brings a better way of representation than reservation, we will throw away the reservation," he said.

On September 8, the court decided to start hearing arguments on issues suggested by Attorney General K K Venugopal, which included whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria.

The other issues including if it can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided institutions. Further, the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution also in excluding the SEBCS/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation.