Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 7 November 2022 · 5 judges
By a 3:2 majority, the Constitution Bench upheld the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which enables up to ten per cent. reservation for economically weaker sections other than SCs, STs and non-creamy layer OBCs.
Facts
The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, in force from 14 January 2019, inserted clause (6) in Article 15 and clause (6) in Article 16. These enable the State to make special provisions, including reservation of up to ten per cent., for economically weaker sections of citizens other than the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the non-creamy layer of Other Backward Classes. Writ petitions, transferred cases and a special leave petition challenged the amendment as violating the basic structure. By order dated 5 August 2020, a three-Judge Bench referred the matter to a Constitution Bench, which heard it on three main issues suggested by the Attorney General.
Questions before the Court
- Does the 103rd Amendment breach the basic structure by permitting special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria?
- Does it breach the basic structure by permitting special provisions for admission to private unaided institutions?
- Does it breach the basic structure by excluding SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation?
- Does the additional ten per cent. reservation breach the basic structure by exceeding the fifty per cent. ceiling?
What the Court held
- Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action not only for socially and educationally backward classes but for any class so disadvantaged as to answer the description of a weaker section. Reservation structured only on economic criteria does not violate the basic structure.
- Excluding the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from EWS reservation balances non-discrimination and compensatory discrimination. Exclusion is inherent in compensatory discrimination, and it does not violate the Equality Code or the basic structure.
- Ten per cent. EWS reservation in addition to existing reservations does not damage the basic structure by breaching the fifty per cent. ceiling. In the opinion of Maheshwari, J., with which Trivedi, J. agreed, that ceiling is not inflexible and applies only to reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4).
- The amendment does not breach the basic structure by permitting special provisions for admission to private unaided institutions, read with Pramati Trust.
- Reservation provisions in Articles 15 and 16 are enabling exceptions to the rule of equality and are not basic features. Whether a particular EWS classification or percentage is supported by relevant data may be examined when it arises, but cannot invalidate the amendment.
Why it matters
The majority upheld, against a basic structure challenge, a constitutional amendment permitting reservation on economic criteria alone, outside the backward class framework of Articles 15(4) and 16(4), and upheld the exclusion of SCs, STs and OBCs from the EWS category. Maheshwari and Trivedi, JJ. treated the fifty per cent. ceiling in earlier decisions as confined to those reservations and not inflexible. The dissent accepted economic criteria for access to public goods under Article 15 but held that the exclusion violated the principle of non-discrimination.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In view of the decision rendered by the majority consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the challenge raised to 103rd Amendment to the Constitution fails and the decision rendered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat remains in minority.”
“Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action by the State so as to ensure all-inclusive march towards the goals of an egalitarian society while counteracting inequalities; it is an instrument not only for inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes to the mainstream of society but, also for inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged as to be answering the description of a weaker section. In this background, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India.”
“The fact that exclusion is innate in compensatory discrimination could further be exemplified by the fact that in Indra Sawhney, this Court excluded the creamy layer of OBCs from the benefit of reservation. In the complex set-up of formal equality on one hand (which debars discrimination altogether) and real and substantive equality on the other (which permits compensatory discrimination so as to upset the disadvantages), exclusion is as indispensable as the compensatory discrimination itself is.”
“Reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent. in addition to the existing reservations does not result in violation of any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India on account of breach of the ceiling limit of fifty per cent. because, that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 15(6), Constitution
- Article 16(6), Constitution
- Article 368, Constitution
- Article 46, Constitution
- Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019
Related judgments
- Follows Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)“As exposited in Kesavananda, the amending power can even be used by the Parliament to reshape the Constitution in order to fulfil the obligation imposed on the State, subject, of course, to the defined limits of not damaging the basic structure of the Constitution.” (page 85)
- Explains Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)“all such observations are required to be read essentially in the context of the reservation obtaining under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4)” (page 147)
- Follows Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014)“read with the decision of this Court in Pramati Trust, the answer to the issue framed in that regard would also be against the challenge” (page 156)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019
- Decided
- 7 November 2022
- Bench
- Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi, J.B. Pardiwala
- Opinions
- Majority 3:2. Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. upheld the 103rd Amendment in separate opinions, Trivedi, J. expressly agreeing with Maheshwari, J. S. Ravindra Bhat, J., for himself and Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, dissented and would have struck down Articles 15(6) and 16(6).
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.