103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019

The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, commonly known as the 103rd Amendment, marked a significant shift in India’s reservation policy by introducing a quota for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the society. This amendment was a response to the growing need to include economically disadvantaged individuals from the unreserved categories in the affirmative action framework. 

This article provides a detailed analysis of the 103rd Amendment, covering its rationale, key provisions, legislative journey, judicial scrutiny, and its implications for Indian society.

What is the 103rd Constitutional Amendment?

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 introduced reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government-run educational institutions and central government jobs. For the first time in India, economic criteria became a basis for affirmative action, alongside caste-based reservations.

Before the introduction of this amendment, reservations in India were primarily based on caste, with Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) benefiting from quotas. The 103rd Amendment expanded this system by offering a 10% reservation to the economically weaker sections, irrespective of caste.

Why Was the 103rd Amendment Necessary?

India’s reservation system was designed to address historical inequalities and socio-economic disadvantages based on caste. However, there was growing concern that certain sections of society, especially those in the unreserved categories, were economically disadvantaged but did not benefit from any affirmative action.

The EWS quota was introduced to provide social and economic justice to those who are financially struggling but do not fall under the reserved categories. This amendment was in line with the principles of affirmative action that aim to uplift the disadvantaged sections of society by offering opportunities in education and employment.

Key Provisions of the 103rd Amendment

The most significant aspects of the 103rd Amendment are encapsulated in the amendments to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which govern reservations in educational institutions and employment, respectively.

Amendment to Article 15

Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. However, it provides exceptions where special provisions can be made for the benefit of socially and educationally backward classes.

The 103rd Amendment introduced Article 15(6), which allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of economically weaker sections of society in matters of admission to educational institutions, including private, unaided institutions, provided they are not minority institutions. This quota is an additional 10% over and above the existing reservations.

Amendment to Article 16

Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The 103rd Amendment added Article 16(6), permitting the State to provide reservation for appointments and posts in favour of economically weaker sections, with a maximum of 10% of the total vacancies in each category. This is in addition to the existing reservations for SC, ST, and OBC.

Criteria for EWS Eligibility

The amendment also laid down the eligibility criteria for the EWS quota, which are as follows:

• Income Limit: The applicant’s annual gross household income should not exceed ₹8 lakh.
• Asset Limitations:
  • Agricultural Land: Families owning more than 5 acres of agricultural land are excluded from the reservation.
  • Residential Property: A family owning a house larger than 1,000 square feet is not eligible.
  • Plot Size: Families with plots larger than 100 yards in notified municipal areas or 200 yards in non-notified areas are also excluded.
• Exclusion of Other Backward Classes: The creamy layer of OBCs, as well as individuals from the SC and ST communities, are not eligible for the EWS reservation, as they are already covered under other quotas.

These eligibility criteria ensure that the benefits of the reservation reach the genuinely needy individuals who are economically disadvantaged but do not fall under the existing reservation categories.

Judicial Scrutiny and Challenges

The 103rd Amendment Act faced immediate judicial scrutiny. Shortly after its passage, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Youth for Equality in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment.

The petitioners argued that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution by introducing an economic criterion for reservations, which they claimed was not in line with the fundamental principles of social justice. The petitioners also contended that the amendment breached the 50% ceiling limit on reservations set by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case (1992), which capped the total reservation at 50%.

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

In 2022, the Supreme Court heard the case, and a five-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment. The judgement was passed by a 3:2 majority, with Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi, and Pardiwala in the majority, and Chief Justice Lalit and Justice Bhat dissenting.

Key Observations of the Majority Opinion:

1. Economic Justice: The Court ruled that the concept of economic justice is integral to the basic structure of the Constitution. The use of economic criteria to identify disadvantaged sections is consistent with the constitutional principles of equality.
2. 50% Reservation Ceiling: The Court observed that the 50% reservation ceiling applies only to reservations under Article 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4), and does not apply to the newly introduced EWS quota.
3. Separate Categories: The Court held that SC, ST, and OBCs form a separate category and cannot be treated at par with the unreserved category. Therefore, the creation of an additional EWS quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Review Petition and Finality

After the Janhit Abhiyan judgement, a Review Petition was filed by the Society for the Rights of Backward Communities. The petitioners sought to challenge the decision, claiming that the EWS quota violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

However, in 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, stating that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and the original judgement stood.

Conclusion

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2019 represents a significant change in India’s reservation system. By introducing a 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), it aims to address the economic disparities faced by citizens outside the caste-based reservation system. While the amendment has been upheld by the Supreme Court, it raises important questions about the balance between economic and social justice.