Unfortunate Judgement by SC on EWS Reservation

Unfortunate Judgement by SC on EWS Reservation

The Supreme Court has upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment providing for a 10% quota for admissions in educational institutions and government jobs for the economically weaker sections (EWS) from unreserved categories.

A five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, in a 3-2 split verdict, held that the provisions of the concerned amendment is not in violation of the Constitution.

While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, CJI UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down.

The Supreme Court verdict has been a disappointing one. The judgement has sown the seed of trouble between the EWS i.e., those who are earning Rs 8 lac a year and the BPL i.e., those who are earning between Rs 77000 to Rs 1.4 lac a year. The EWS has been favoured over the BPL. While the BPL section will start questioning the logic behind awarding benefits of reservation to EWS after neglecting the very low income section of the BPL, already availing 50% total reservation are asking for more in proportion to EWS quota.

 

EWS status needs not be expected to remain permanent and hence the benefits availed shouldn't also remain temporary in force. This is the reality. The amended law cannot be conditional as it is impossible to guarantee suspension of benefits once the economic status improves and income overshoots the EWS income bracket. 

Hence, this amendment is most likely to invite confusion and complications. Pray better sense prevails upon the government to come out with practical legislative solutions.

It has been seen in the history of independent India, whenever the government took any step towards affirmative action, i.e., decisions in a socialist way –  economically in favor of social justice were not received in a favourable way by the Supreme Court in most of the cases.  For example, the Supreme Court had given judgements against the Privy purse and bank nationalization, which resulted in the return of the Privy purse and even bank nationalization was prohibited by the Supreme Court  describing it as unconstitutional.

The then determined PM Mrs Indira Gandhi took recourse to legal legislative parliamentary executive powers to abolish privy purses and implement  nationalization of banks in the larger interest of the country in general and the society as a whole. 

My point is that only through political will, intent and policy the solution of economic backwardness should be found because there is no such argument in the constitution to justify reservation on economic basis except on social and educational basis.