In Brief: Here Are Highlights Of Each Of The Four Judges' Opinions Delivered In The EWS Case

A five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment which grants 10 percent reservation to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS).

There were four separate judgments delivered by the bench with CJI UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat dissenting from the majority opinion with respect to the question whether EWS reservation is discriminatory by restricting the benefit to the general category only.

Justice Maheshwari

Primarily, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held: “EWS amendment does not violate the basic structure as it is based in economic criteria, state forming special provision for EWS quota does not violate the basic structure”.

He also ruled that the 50% ceiling for reservation laid down in Indra Sawhney judgment is only applicable for reservation with respect to socially backward classes under Article 16(4) and 16(5) of the Constitution.

Justice Trivedi

Justice Bela M Trivedi, by way of separate judgement also concurred with Justice Maheshwari.

She held that, "The amendment as a separate class is a reasonable classification. Legislature understands the needs of people and it is aware of the economic exclusion of people from reservation".

Interestingly, suggesting a re-examination of the concept of reservation, she said that while it cannot be denied that the age-old caste system in India led to the introduction of reservations so that SCs/STs could get level playing field, at the end of 75 years, a re-look is needed at reservations. 

On similar lines, Justice JB Pardiwala, in his concurrent judgement categorically stated that, "The ones who have moved ahead should be removed from backward classes so that ones in need can be helped. The ways to determine backward classes need a re- look so that ways are relevant in today’s time. Reservation should not continue for indefinite time so that it becomes a vested interest".

CJI U U Lalit and Justice Bhat

Justice Ravindra Bhat in his dissenting opinion held the 103rd Constitutional Amendment wants us to believe that those getting social and backward class benefit are somehow better placed than the others. CJI UU Lalit concurred with Justice Ravindra Bhat's opinion.

He was of the opinion that while reservation on economic basis is permissible, excluding SC/STs and Other Backward Classes from the EWS reservation cannot be permitted. He said that excluding the SC/STs and OBCs would be against basic structure of the constitution as it violates the principle of equality.

He relied on the Sinho Commission Report to opine that 38 per cent of the total SC population and 48 per cent of the total ST population is below the poverty line. Therefore, they should also be allowed to avail the benefit of reservation based on economic criteria.

Additionally, he opined against breaching the 50 per cent cap on reservation as set by the Indra Sawhney Judgment.

He concluded that while the state can introduce reservation for the economically backward in general, excluding SC/STs and OBCs would make it unconstitutional.

As the score stood at 3:2, with three judges upholding the 103rd Constitution Amendment, the EWS reservation stands to be constitutionally valid.