In a big win for the government, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the 10 per cent reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in admissions and government jobs with a 3:2 majority. Three out of five judges delivered verdicts in favour of the EWS quota, saying it did not violate the law.
Click Here: Angel Di Maria jersey sale
Agency
Here’s everything that you should know about EWS quota.
The EWS quota, introduced just before the 2019 general elections, is not discriminatory and does not alter the basic structure of the constitution, said the majority judgement of a Supreme Court bench.
Two judges dissented, including
Justice Ravindra Bhat and Chief Justice UU Lalit, who retires tomorrow, while Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and J B Pardiwala agreed that the amendment does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Jump To
The judgment
“It is an instrument not only for inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes to the mainstream of society, but also for the inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged as to be answering the definition of a weaker section. In this background, reservation singularly on economic background does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the constitution,” Justice Maheshwari, in his judgment, said.
Exclusion of the reserved categories from the EWS quota does not violate the equality code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the constitution, he added.
Representational Image
Justice Bela M Trivedi stated: “The impugned amendment creates a separate class of EWS from the general or unreserved category without affecting the special rights of reservations provided to the SC’s, ST’s and SEBC’s. Therefore, exclusion of SC’s, ST’s and SEBC from such reservation is not unreasonable.”
Justice Trivedi also said that though it was envisaged that reservation must have a time span, it has still not been accomplished even after 75 years of Independence. She added that the policy needs to be revisited in the larger interest of the society as a whole, as a step forward towards transformative constitutionalism.
Arguments by dissenting judges
Justice Ravindra Bhat, the other dissenting judge, said he supported quota for the economically backward, but the exclusion of the socially backward sections is not allowed in the constitution.
“Economic destitution, economic backwardness is backbone of this amendment and on this account, amendment is constitutionally indefeasible. However, excluding the classes such as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes (OBC) is not constitutionally permissible,” Justice Bhat said. The Chief Justice said: “I have concurred with the view taken by Justice Bhat. The decision stands at 3:2.”
timothybouldry
Petitions had questioned how the quota could cross the 50 per cent national cap on reservation set by the Supreme Court in 1992 and whether it changed the “basic structure” of the constitution. The quota was “a deceitful and backdoor attempt to destroy concept of reservation”, said petitioners.
About EWS quota
The EWS quota was introduced through the 103rd constitutional amendment, cleared in January 2019 by the Centre soon after the ruling BJP lost the Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh elections.
It was instantly challenged in the Supreme Court.
The quota bypassed affirmative action that benefits communities traditionally marginalised in Indian society, like the SC, ST and OBC.
For more on news and current affairs from around the world please visit Indiatimes News.