‘First step towards eradicating caste-based quotas’

NEW DELHI: Monday’s Supreme Court order upholding the EWS quota clears the way for more attempts by governments to provide above 50% quota in government jobs and educational institutions on grounds of social and educational backwardness as well as economic deprivation.
While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and J B Pardiwala did not find any fault in the amendment saying that it was a right step towards an egalitarian society, Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat said not allowing the poor from SCs/STs/OBCs to get benefit of EWS quota and permitting only the poor from forward classes is discriminatory and “strikes a death knell to the equality and fraternal principle which permeates the equality code and non-discrimination principle”.
All the three judges in favour of the amendment wrote separate but concurrent verdicts while the minority verdict was written by Justice Bhat on behalf of himself and the CJI. The majority held that keeping SCs/STs/OBCs out of EWS quota is not violative of the equality code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution. They also said that the breaching of the 50% ceiling for quota is not violative of the Constitution.
The amendment had been challenged on the ground that the move to give reservation based on economic criterion was violative of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. The argument was rejected by the court. “Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action by the state so as to ensure all-inclusive march towards the goals of an egalitarian society while counteracting inequalities; it is an instrument not only for inclusion of socially and educati onally backward classes to the mainstream of society but also for inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged as to be answering the description of a weaker section. In this background, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution,” said Justice Maheshwari in his judgment.
The SC held that quota, one of the permissible affirmative actions enabled by the statute, was nevertheless an exception to the general rule of equality and, hence, could- n’t be regarded as an essential feature or basic structure of the Constitution that couldn’t be modulated. It said the expression “economically weaker sections of citizens” was not a matter of mere semantics but was an expression of hard realities. “Poverty is not merely a state of stagnation but is a point of regression. Of course, mass poverty cannot be eliminated within a short period and it is a question of progress along a time path,” Justice Maheshwari said, adding that EWS reservation be not seen as “backward class versus forward class”.
Rejecting the plea that quota in breach of 50% ceiling wasn’t permissible as per the SC’s earlier order, the majority verdict said, “No decision of this court could be read to me- an that even if Parliament fin- ds the necessity of another affirmative action by the state in the form of quota for a section or class in need, it could never be provided. As noticed herein below, the decisions of this court are rather to the contrary and provide that flexibility within which Parliament has acted for putting in place the amendment in question.”
Justice Trivedi said economic empowerment to the weaker sections of society was the fundamental requirement for ensuring equality of status and to promote fraternity assuring dignity as visualised by the framers of the Constitution. “And, therefore, any positive discrimination in favour of the weak or disadvantaged class of people by means of a valid classification has been treated as an affirmative action on the part of the state,” she said. “Equality is violated if it rests on unreasonable classification. A reasonable classification is permissible, which includes all who are similarly situated, and none who are not. Discrimination is the essence of classification” Justice Trivedi said.
Justice Pardiwala said, “The new concept of economic criteria introduced by the impugned amendment for affirmative action may go a long way in eradicating caste-based reservation. It may be perceived as a first step in the process of doing away with caste-based reservation.”