Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court, in a batch of writ petitions, considered the constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to provide 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in educational institutions and public employment. The petitioners, including Janhit Abhiyan, challenged the amendment on the ground that it alters the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the right to equality, and that economic criterion alone cannot determine backwardness. They also argued that the amendment violates the principle laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which held that backward classes cannot be identified solely by economic criteria, and that reservation in unaided institutions infringes Article 19(1)(g). The Union of India defended the amendment, stating it was necessary to benefit EWS not covered by existing reservations, and that economic criterion is a valid basis for affirmative action. The Court, after hearing senior counsels, noted that the case involves substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of the constitutional amendment and referred the matter to a Constitution Bench of five Judges under Article 145(3) and Order XXXVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Court did not finally decide the validity but ordered that the petitions be heard by a Constitution Bench.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Basic Structure Doctrine - Amendment to Articles 15 and 16 - The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 inserting Articles 15(6) and 16(6) providing 10% reservation for economically weaker sections does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The amendment is an enabling provision for affirmative action and is in conformity with the principle of equality. (Paras 1-7) B) Reservation - Economic Criterion - Identification of Backward Class - Economic criterion can be a relevant criterion for affirmative action under the Constitution. The ratio in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India regarding backward class determination solely by economic criterion does not apply to constitutional amendments. (Paras 3-4) C) Reservation - Limit of 50% - Applicability to Article 15(6) - The 50% ceiling on reservations applies to reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) and does not apply to Article 15(6). (Para 4) D) Reservation - Unaided Institutions - Violation of Article 19(1)(g) - The impugned amendments do not violate Article 19(1)(g) as the State is entitled to impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, inserting Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to provide 10% reservation for economically weaker sections, violates the basic structure of the Constitution?
Final Decision
The Court, finding substantial questions of law as to interpretation of the constitutional amendment, refers the matter to a Constitution Bench of five Judges under Article 145(3) and Order XXXVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The petitions are to be heard by the Constitution Bench.
Law Points
- Basic structure doctrine
- Economic criterion for reservation
- Reservation limit of 50%
- Reservation in unaided institutions
- Articles 15 and 16 amendment
