A seminal ruling known as Janhit Abhiyan examined and addressed the problem of reserving seats in school and employment for members of society who are economically disadvantaged groups. In 2022, this case was heard by a five-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, ending the argument. The bench included Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice B.M. Trivedi, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice U.U. Lalit, who was the Chief Justice of India at the time.
janhit abhiyan v union of india Case Facts
- In this case, the 103rd constitutional amendment act, 2019, a new constitutional amendment enacted by the Indian government, gave 10% of the population’s reservations to the economically disadvantaged groups. It is also important to remember that the constitution only calls for reservations based on a person’s social and educational background.
- Two new clauses, designated as Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) in Articles 15 and 16, respectively, were introduced to the constitution by the alteration.
- The amendment additionally established a section requiring the addition of this reserve clause to both government and private institutions, both assisted and unaided. article 30(1) of the indian constitution exempted minority institutes, which was the lone exception.
- The 10% reservation requirement was added in a way that will increase the number of available seats by 10% without changing the pattern of current government employment or educational institution seats. If an institute has 100 seats overall, then it will have 110 seats after an additional 10 seats are set aside for the economically disadvantaged groups.
- This sparked a heated constitutional dispute about the state’s authority to establish new standards for the reservation of people from economically disadvantaged groups. As a result, the Supreme Court received about twenty petitions asking it to review the constitutional amendment’s constitutionality.
janhit abhiyan v union of india Issues
- Can economic considerations be the only basis for reservations?
- Does the 103rd Amendment’s granting of more reservations than the 50% ceiling set by the Honorable Supreme Court in the 1992 case of Indra Sawhney violate the fundamental framework?
- Can the provision of ews reservations be denied to Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, as well as Socially and Economically Backward Classes?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The reservation for economically disadvantaged groups (EWS) and the Constitution (103rd constitutional amendment act), 2019 both went against the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution.
- The ews reservation would deny other segments of society, who were already having difficulty getting into schools or finding jobs, more possibilities.
- The reservation for EWS was solely a political ploy meant to win support; any actual evidence or research did not support it.
- The ews reservation would not improve the lives of those in the lower economic strata of society or serve to reduce poverty.
Respondent:
- Ensuring social and economic fairness in India required the implementation of the quota policy for economically weaker sections (EWS).
- Since the ews reservation was created to give all societal segments equal chances, it did not violate any fundamental provisions of the Indian Constitution.
- In order to combat economic inequality in India and advance both social and economic mobility, the ews reservation was implemented.
- The ews reservation served as an enabling element, granting the state the authority to provide economically disadvantaged segments of the population with preferential access to jobs and educational opportunities.
janhit abhiyan v union of india Judgment
- On November 7, 2022, a 3:2 majority of the Supreme Court’s five-judge panel upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd amendment act, 2019, which grants ews reservations.
- According to Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, adding 10% of additional reservations to those already in place for citizens from economically disadvantaged backgrounds does not violate any fundamental provisions of the Indian Constitution and does not undermine its fundamental framework by going over the 50% ceiling.
- This is due to the fact that the ceiling restriction is not absolute and, in any event, only applies to the reservations that are specified in Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution.
- Furthermore, considering the goals of substantive equality as outlined in the previous rulings of the Supreme Court. According to Justice Bela M. Trivedi, it would be just to assign members of the economically disadvantaged group to a distinct class. Justice Pardiwala contends that affirmative action may legitimately take economic reasons into account.
- Nonetheless, Justice Bhat, expressing the minority view, vehemently disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the aim of Article 15 (reservation in public employment) might be satisfied by “economic factors.” He pointed out that Indra Sawhney had said reservations cannot be issued purely on the basis of financial considerations. The Apex Court did not, however, hold that reservations cannot be made due to financial considerations.
- Justice Bhat states that the reservation imposed under Article 16(4) is based on “adequate representation.” Since they are not marginalized, the economically disadvantaged groups are not eligible for the reservation outlined in Article 16.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
