Supreme Court reserves judgment on petitions challenging EWS quota in admissions, jobs

In his submission, A-G said the EWS quota has been given without disturbing the 50% quota, meant for the socially and economically backward classes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on a plea questioning the validity of the 103rd Constitution Amendment providing 10 per cent reservation to economically weaker sections (EWS) in jobs and education.

A five-judge Constitution bench presided over by Chief Justice U U Lalit wrapped up the proceedings after seven-day long hearing on a batch of petitions filed by NGO 'Janhit Abhiyan' and others.

Attorney General K K Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the EWS quota before the bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, and J B Pardiwala.

It was informed by the Centre that in order to ensure 10 per cent EWS quota does not eat into SC ST OBC & general category seats, it has directed all central educational institutes to increase seat intake by 25 per cent. A total of 2.14 lakhs additional seats at cost of Rs 4,315.15 Cr have been approved.

In his submission, A-G said the EWS quota has been given without disturbing the 50 per cent quota, meant for the socially and economically backward classes (SEBC).

The backward classes, including the SCs, STs, and OBCs each contained economically weaker sections within themselves, and also the general category consisted of economically weaker sections, which were grossly poor, he said.

In the rejoinder arguments, legal scholar Dr G Mohan Gopal, representing some petitioners, argued that socially and educationally backward class was a category, which united all categories as backward classes- based on social, economic, and political backwardness. He contended that compartmentalisation of classes, the quality of forwardness being required as a prerequisite for granting reservations went against the basic structure of the Constitution.

Senior advocate P Wilson argued that Articles 15(4) & 16(4) of the Constitution are enabling provisions to grant reservations which are affirmative action to offset centuries of social discrimination and promote equality. He claimed the 103rd Amendment nullifies and destroys the substantive equality sought to be achieved by Articles 15(4) & 16(4) and takes SC/ST/OBCs back to pre-Constitution conditions in society.

“In Indra Sawhney, this court has held that reservations based on economic criteria will lead to virtual deletion of Art 15(4) and 16(4),” he said.

A senior counsel argued that the Centre had not provided the nexus between reservation and poverty or explained why other benefits instead of reservations could not be granted to EWS. Another counsel argued against the compartmentalisation of classes and submitted that the 50 per cent ceiling limit was sacrosanct and violating it would be a shocking infringement of the basic structure.