The Supreme Court on Friday did not agree for an immediate stay of the operation the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, which provides 10 per cent reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for those economically backward in the unreserved category, but agreed for an early hearing of the challenge to the law.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi consented to tagging a petition filed by businessman Tehseen Poonawalla seeking to quash the Act, saying that backwardness for the purpose of reservation cannot be defined by "economic status alone", with other similar petitions filed earlier.
The quota would be over and above the existing 50 per cent reservation to SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Mr. Poonawala contended. The law was passed by the Parliament and had received the President’s assent. The Act amends Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution by adding clauses empowering the government to provide reservation on the basis of economic backwardness.
The petitions in the Supreme Court said the Act violated the Basic Features of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the 50% ceiling limit on quota has been “engrafted as a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution’s equality code” by the Supreme Court.
The Bench has already issued notice on an earlier petition filed by Youth For Equality, which had contended that a nine-judge Constitution Bench in the Indira Sawhney case has already settled the law that economic backwardness cannot be the sole basis for reservation.
The plea had argued that the Act was “vulnerable” and negates a binding judgment of the top court. The petitioners have contended that the amendments excludes the OBCs and the SC/ST communities from the scope of the economic reservation. This, they said, “essentially implies that only those who are poor from the general categories would avail the benefits of the quotas”.
They have alleged that the high creamy layer limit of ₹8 lakh per annum ensures that the elite capture the reservation benefits. Further, the petition contended that the Supreme Court has settled the law that the “State’s reservation policy cannot be imposed on unaided educational institutions, and as they are not receiving any aid from the State, they can have their own admissions provided they are fair, transparent, non-exploitative and based on merit”.
The petitions have contended that the term “economically weaker sections” remains undefined in the Act along with the “ambiguous” term of “State.