Examine analytically, in the light of latest judgements, the constitutionality of the reservations to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) given by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.

Question: Examine analytically, in the light of latest judgements, the constitutionality of the reservations to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) given by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.

Find the answer to the mains question of Constitutional Law only on Legal Bites. [Examine analytically, in the light of latest judgements, the constitutionality of the reservations to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) given by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.]

Answer

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, which came into effect on January 14, 2019, introduced reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in India. This amendment added Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) to the Indian Constitution to provide for a maximum of 10% reservation for EWS in educational institutions and public employment. Since its enactment, there have been legal challenges and debates regarding the constitutionality of these reservations. Here's an analytical examination of the constitutionality of EWS reservations in light of recent judgments:

1. Validity under the Basic Structure Doctrine:

The "Basic Structure Doctrine" established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225,  holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by constitutional amendments. These features include democracy, secularism, and the rule of law. Reservations based on social and economic criteria, as well as the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14, are also considered part of the basic structure.

Recent judgments have upheld the validity of EWS reservations while ensuring that they do not violate the basic structure:

2. 50% Cap on Reservations:

The Supreme Court has, in several earlier cases, established a 50% cap on reservations to ensure that the principle of meritocracy is not compromised. Any reservation exceeding this limit is presumed to be unconstitutional unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

In the case of E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (civil) 6758 of 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a 5% quota for Muslim candidates, exceeding the 50% cap, citing the need to address the social and educational backwardness of the community. This judgment affirmed the possibility of exceeding the 50% limit in exceptional cases.

3. Exclusion of the 'Creamy Layer':

To ensure that the benefits of reservations reach the most disadvantaged within the EWS category, the Supreme Court has emphasized the exclusion of the 'creamy layer'—those individuals with high incomes and social advancement—from reservation benefits.

Recent judgements have highlighted the importance of excluding the creamy layer:

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477, and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the creamy layer should be excluded from reservation benefits to prevent the perpetuation of privileges among economically advanced individuals.

In conclusion, while there have been legal challenges to EWS reservations, recent judgments have generally upheld their constitutionality, provided they adhere to the 50% cap, do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, and exclude the creamy layer. The aim is to balance the need for affirmative action with the principles of equality and meritocracy, ensuring that the most economically disadvantaged individuals have access to educational and employment opportunities.

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams