Is There Any Reservation for General Category? – 103rd Constitutional Amendment

Reservation in India has traditionally been a tool to uplift historically disadvantaged communities such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). These reservations are constitutionally guaranteed and aim to provide equal opportunities in education and employment.

However, the question arises: Is there any reservation for the General category? Traditionally, the General category—also called the Unreserved category—did not have any specific reservation benefits. This changed with the introduction of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, which provided for a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) within the General category.

Background: Reservation Before the 103rd Amendment

Before the 103rd Amendment, reservations in India were mainly based on social and educational backwardness tied to caste. The Constitution of India, through Articles 15 and 16, allows special provisions for these backward classes and groups.

The existing reservation system included:

• Scheduled Castes (SC): 15% reservation
• Scheduled Tribes (ST): 7.5% reservation
• Other Backward Classes (OBC): 27% reservation

Together, these reservations accounted for approximately 49% of available seats in government jobs and educational institutions. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), set a 50% ceiling on total reservations to maintain a balance between affirmative action and meritocracy.

The General category or Unreserved category had no reservation benefits; individuals had to compete purely on merit.

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment: An Overview

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 introduced a significant change. It inserted a provision to allow the State to provide reservation up to 10% for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among the General category.

The amendment modified Articles 15 and 16 as follows:

• Article 15 was amended to allow special provisions for EWS in admission to educational institutions, including private unaided institutions.
• Article 16 was amended to permit reservation in public employment for EWS.

This Amendment was necessary because the 10% EWS reservation would push total reservations beyond the 50% limit prescribed by the Supreme Court, requiring a constitutional amendment rather than a simple law.

Who Qualifies as Economically Weaker Section (EWS)?

The government framed rules defining the eligibility criteria for EWS to ensure that only genuinely economically weaker individuals from the General category benefit from the reservation. The key criteria are:

• Annual family income must be less than ₹8 lakh. The family includes self, spouse, dependent children, and siblings.
• The family must not own agricultural land more than 5 acres.
• The family should not own a residential flat of size more than 1,000 sq. ft.
• The family should not own a residential plot exceeding 100 sq. yards in notified municipalities or 200 sq. yards in non-notified areas.

These criteria were designed to exclude the “creamy layer” and ensure the benefits reach genuinely needy sections.

Application and Scope of EWS Reservation

The 10% EWS reservation applies to:

• Central and State government jobs.
• Educational institutions funded or aided by the government.
• Private unaided educational institutions (as per constitutional provisions).

Thus, the Amendment widened the ambit of reservations to include economic disadvantage as a criterion, alongside social and educational backwardness.

Constitutional and Judicial Issues

The 103rd Amendment has been subject to intense legal scrutiny and debate, mainly due to two reasons:

1. Exceeding the 50% Reservation Cap: The total reservation after including EWS crosses 50% (49% existing + 10% EWS = 59%). This appears to contravene the Supreme Court’s 50% limit set in Indra Sawhney. Various states had attempted exceeding this cap, with mixed judicial responses.
2. Reservation Based Solely on Economic Criteria: Earlier, reservation was granted primarily on social and educational backwardness, not purely on economic grounds. The Amendment allows reservation based on economic criteria alone, which some see as a departure from established constitutional principles.

Judicial Pronouncements on 103rd Amendment

• In the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 103rd Amendment by a majority decision. The Court held that economic backwardness could be a basis for reservation.
• However, concerns remain about the breach of the 50% ceiling. The Court did not conclusively rule on this and suggested the matter might need a larger bench’s consideration.
• The petitioners argued that the Amendment violates the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution, which includes equality and merit principles. However, the Supreme Court held that economic backwardness as a criterion is constitutionally permissible.

Directive Principles and State Obligations

Article 46 of the Constitution directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections. The 103rd Amendment is justified partly on this basis that economic backwardness merits affirmative action.

Moreover, states are required to ensure that the benefits of reservation policies actually reach the deserving and do not remain confined to the privileged sections within a community.

Conclusion

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced a historic 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections of the General category, marking a new chapter in India’s reservation policy. It recognises that economic hardship is a significant barrier to equal opportunity, even for those outside traditional reserved categories.

While the Amendment faces constitutional challenges, particularly regarding the 50% reservation ceiling and the use of economic criteria alone, it signals the State’s evolving approach to affirmative action.