Context: The Supreme Court delivered a three-two verdict upholding the validity of the 10% quota in educational institutions and government jobs for the economically weaker sections of the general quota.

EWS background

• The 10% reservation for economically weaker citizens of the general category was instituted by the Union government through a 103rd constitutional amendment in January 2019.

• The 103rd Amendment of 2019 inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution.

• The general category is a category that includes those who are not members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes.

• This new quota applied to all government jobs and both private and state-funded educational institutions.

• However, educational institutions run by minority groups were excluded from having to implement EWS reservations.

Eligibility criteria

• The Centre defined economically weaker sections as those with an annual family income of less than Rs 8 lakh or who owned less property than the limits it laid down.

• The Supreme Court is examining the legality of this definition in a separate case.

Persons whose family owns or possesses any one of the following assets are to be excluded from being identified as EWSs, irrespective of the family income:

• 5 acres of Agricultural land and above.

• Residential flat of 1000 sq. ft. and above.

• Residential plots of 100 sq. yards and above in notified municipalities.

• Residential plots of 200 sq. yards and above in areas other than the notified municipalities.

• The property held by a family in different places/cities would be clubbed while applying the land or property holding test to determine EWS status.

• Family for this purpose would include the person who seeks the benefit of reservation, his/her parents and siblings below the age of 18 years as also his/ her spouse and children below the age of 18 years.

Sinho commission

• The EWS reservation was granted based on the recommendations of a commission headed by Major General (retd) S R Sinho.

• The commission was constituted in March 2005 and submitted its report in July 2010.

• It recommended that all below-poverty-line (BPL) families within the general category as notified from time to time, and also all families whose annual family income from all sources is below the taxable limit, should be identified as EBCs (economically backward classes).

Challenges to EWS

• The petitioners argued that the EWS reservation violated the basic structure of the Constitution as it reserved seats solely based on economic backwardness rather than social and educational backwardness.

• The basic structure refers to fundamental features of the Constitution that cannot be removed or altered even by a constitutional amendment.

• The petitioners argued that reservations are a means to compensate for past injustices and not a tool for economic upliftment.

• They also argued that the EWS reservation was discriminatory since it excluded members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes.

• They added these reservations also breached the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling that quotas could not exceed 50% of the total seats available.

Government’s argument

• The Union government argued that reservations could be made solely on economic criteria and that the EWS quota promoted equality.

• It argued that excluding members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes from the EWS quota was not discriminatory since they were already benefitting from reservations.

• It argued that the 50% cap on reservations is only related to existing reservations and not to the new EWS quota.

Questions before the Supreme court on EWS

• Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the state to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria

• Whether it (the amendment) can be said to breach the basic structure by permitting the state to make special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided institutions.

• Whether the basic structure is violated by excluding the SEBCs (Socially and Educationally Backward Classes)/ OBCs (Other Backward Classes)/ SCs (Scheduled Castes)/ STs (Scheduled Tribes) from the scope of EWS reservation”.

On what basis was the reservation upheld?

• SC said that reservations could be granted solely on economic criteria.

• It held that reservations were intended to reduce inequality in society and that disadvantages could arise solely out of poverty as well.

• Achieving “substantive equality” meant providing both economic and social justice.

• It held that since other disadvantaged groups were already benefitting from reservations, their exclusion from the EWS quota was not discriminatory. Rather, it was consistent with the right to equality guaranteed under the Constitution.

• It said that extending the EWS quota to other categories, such as members of the Scheduled Castes, would amount to “treating unequals as equals”.

• It said that the 50% cap was flexible and only applied to existing reservations for members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes.