Case Briefing: Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India 2022
Case Title and Citation
JANHIT ABHIYAN vs UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 55/2019
Date of Judgment: November 7, 2022
Factual Background
The challenge was brought against the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which was enacted by Parliament and received Presidential assent on January 12, 2019. This Amendment introduced Articles 15(6) and 16(6) into the Constitution of India. These new clauses enabled the State to make special provisions, including reservation (up to 10%), in educational institutions and in matters of public employment solely based on economic criteria (Economically Weaker Sections or EWS). Petitioners argued that the Amendment violated the 50% ceiling limit for reservations set by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (1992) and breached the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the Equality Code. The matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench for determination.
Issue(s)
The primary questions formulated for determination were:
- Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment breaches the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based solely on economic criteria?
- Whether the Amendment breaches the basic structure by excluding Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (SCs/STs/OBCs) from the scope of EWS reservation?
- Whether EWS reservation breaches the 50% ceiling for reservations established by the Supreme Court?
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority verdict, upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019. The challenge to the Amendment failed. The Court dismissed the writ petitions and other proceedings.
Reason for the decision
The majority opinion, authored primarily by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari (and concurred by Justices Trivedi and Pardiwala), found that the Amendment was consistent with the basic structure of the Constitution:
- On Economic Criteria: Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action for the inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged, not limited only to socially and educationally backward classes. The purpose of the amendment, empowering the State to make special provisions for economically weaker sections, is squarely within the confines of the Constitution. It helps achieve the Preamble’s goal of ‘JUSTICE, social, economic and political’ and furthers the duty enjoined upon the State by Articles 38 and 46 (Directive Principles).
- On Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC: The exclusion of classes already covered under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) (SCs/STs/OBCs) is justified and does not violate the Equality Code. Compensatory discrimination is inherently exclusionary in character and acquires its worth by excluding others to provide benefit to the target group. The excluded classes are already enjoying the benefit of affirmative action in their favour, thereby avoiding a “double benefit”.
- On 50% Ceiling: The ceiling limit of 50% is not inflexible or inviolable and applies primarily to reservations made under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) for socially and educationally backward classes. Providing an additional 10% reservation for EWS does not damage the basic structure of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, is constitutionally valid and does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The majority held that the amendment, by addressing economic disadvantage through reservation, strengthens the constitutional goal of economic justice.
Case Materials:
Day 8 of Arguments: 27 September 2022 (Video Recording)
