A Supreme Court (SC) bench led by Chief Justice UU Lalit is dealing with a series of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment Act, passed on January 12, 2019. The change saw a 10 percent quota for government agencies and before educational institutions to people belonging to the economically disadvantaged (EWS) strata of society.

who is eligible

Families not covered under SC, ST and OBC and with gross annual income less than Rs 8,000 per year can be insured as EWS once the law is passed. Educational institutions run by minority communities have been excluded from the scope of the law.

Why was the change challenged in court?

On January 10, 2019, even before the President gave the green light for the amendment, several petitions were filed with the Supreme Court, finding that the amendment violated the “fundamental structure” of the Constitution.

The basic framework are the most basic rules that absolutely must be recorded in any legislation. In the 1992 case of Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that no amendment that violated the basic structure of the Constitution was valid. It also noted that the total number of seats and positions reserved should not exceed 50 percent of the total. Nor can economic backwardness be the only reason for reservations.

The BGH has to decide three central points: Is the reservation based solely on economic backwardness constitutionally valid? Is the reservation valid in private institutes based on EWS? The law excludes SCs, STs and OBCs from the definition of EWS. Is that constitutionally valid?

What is the government’s stance?

The Government has stated that although the 50 per cent limit was set in the 1992 ruling, it can be exceeded if quantifiable data support the argument. It also added that the law aims to bring equality to society and EWS can only be levied for economic reasons.