| Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India | |
| Court: | Supreme Court of India |
| Full Name: | Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India |
| Date Decided: | 09 January 2019 |
| Citations: | WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 55 OF 2019 |
| Judges: | Justice Uday Umesh Lalit (CJI), Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat |
| Number Of Judges: | 5 |
| Italic Title: | 1 |
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 55 OF 2019), also known as the EWS Reservation case, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India.
On January 9, 2019, the Parliament introduced amendments to Articles 15 and Article 16 of the Constitution India, incorporating clauses 15(6) and 16(6) to extend reservation in educational institutions and employment opportunities to economically weaker sections of society. This amendment, known as the One Hundred and Third (103rd) Constitutional Amendment, has been a subject of controversy since its enactment. It empowered the state to introduce specific provisions for economically disadvantaged sections in education and employment, thus expanding the scope of reservations.
Following the enactment of the One Hundred and Third Amendment Act of 2019, several writ petitions were filed, seeking to declare the amendment unconstitutional and in violation of the basic structure concept. By adding Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution, the state acquired the authority to impose specific restrictions on reservations for economically weaker sections, with a maximum of 10%. The Superem court compiled all the writ under the case Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India.
The Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment delivered on November 7, 2022, upheld the legality of the One Hundred and Third Amendment Act of 2019 with a majority decision of 3:2[2]
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice J B Pardiwala
The court observed that the reservation for the EWS is a valid classification and does not infringe upon the existing reservations for the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs). It was noted that the EWS category is based on economic backwardness and not on caste or social backwardness, which are the criteria for existing reservations.[3]
The court further held that the reservation for the EWS is a legitimate means to achieve the goal of providing equal opportunities and social justice to all sections of society. It recognized that economic inequality and poverty can also be a form of social disadvantage and that the reservation for the EWS is a step towards addressing this aspect of inequality.[4]
Former Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat,
CJI UU Lalit and J. Ravindra Bhat dissented from the majority opinion and held that the 103rd amendment to the constitution was violative of the basic structure on two grounds. First, they argued that the exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs from the 10% quota of EWS reservation was against the equality code and discriminated against the historically disadvantaged and deprived communities.[5] Second, they argued that reservation under Article 16 could not be based solely on economic criteria, as it would go against the purpose of providing representation to the socially and educationally backward classes.[6]