EWS Reservation and the 103rd Amendment: What Janhit Abhiyan Decided
The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 introduced a new basis for affirmative action. Articles 15(6) and 16(6) enable special provisions, including up to ten per cent reservation, for economically weaker sections other than the classes covered by the existing reservation clauses. In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 INSC 1157, a Constitution Bench upheld the amendment by a three-to-two majority.
What the amendment changed
Article 15(6) permits special provisions for the advancement of economically weaker sections, including admission reservations in educational institutions other than minority institutions under Article 30(1). Article 16(6) enables reservation in appointments or posts. Both provisions contemplate a maximum of ten per cent in addition to existing reservations.
The EWS category under these clauses excludes classes mentioned in Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4). The constitutional challenge argued that economic criteria alone, this exclusion, and reservation beyond the conventional fifty-per-cent ceiling damaged the equality code and therefore the basic structure.
The majority view
The majority concluded that reservation based on economic disadvantage is not, by itself, forbidden by the Constitution’s equality principle. Parliament could create an additional affirmative-action route for economically weaker persons who were not beneficiaries of the pre-existing reservations.
The exclusion of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes from the EWS category was also upheld. The majority treated those groups as already covered by separate constitutional measures, rather than as similarly situated applicants arbitrarily denied the same benefit.
On the fifty-per-cent ceiling, the majority reasoned that the limit developed in the context of reservations under the earlier clauses and did not make the additional EWS provision destructive of the basic structure.
The dissent
The dissenting judges accepted that economic disadvantage may support affirmative action but considered the categorical exclusion of socially disadvantaged classes constitutionally impermissible. Their concern was that a poverty-based benefit excluded poor persons solely because they belonged to groups protected by other reservation provisions.
This division is important. The binding outcome is that the 103rd Amendment is valid, but the dissent identifies continuing questions about how equality should address overlapping economic and social disadvantage.
What the judgment does not decide
Janhit Abhiyan upheld the enabling constitutional amendment. It does not mean every implementing rule, income threshold or selection process is automatically valid. Particular criteria remain subject to the governing notification, statutory authority, rationality and constitutional review.
Articles 15(6) and 16(6) are enabling provisions. Their text allows the State to make special provisions; implementation depends on applicable Central or State measures. Eligibility must therefore be checked against the current rules of the institution or recruiting authority, not inferred from the constitutional text alone.
Conclusion
Janhit Abhiyan confirms that the Constitution permits economic disadvantage to operate as an independent basis for reservation within the design of the 103rd Amendment. The close decision also shows that equality disputes cannot be understood only through percentages: classification, exclusion and the relationship between economic and historical disadvantage remain central.
Sources
Supreme Court of India, Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, judgment dated 7 November 2022: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/1827/1827_2019_1_1501_39619_Judgement_07-Nov-2022.pdf
Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019: https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-amendment-acts/
Constitution of India, Articles 15 and 16: https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
#EWSReservation #Equality #ConstitutionalLaw