[ad_1]
Petitions have challenged validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment which provides 10% reservation to economically weaker sections of society
Petitions have challenged validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment which provides 10% reservation to economically weaker sections of society
A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit is scheduled to pronounce judgment on November 7 on the challenge to the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which provides 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions to the ‘economically weaker sections [EWS] of the society’ but excludes the ‘poorest of poor’ among Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes from its ambit.
The other judges on the Bench include Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala.
November 7 is the last working day of Chief Justice Lalit.
The Constitution Bench had heard marathon arguments for seven days before reserving the case for judgment on September 27.
Key issues
Some of the vital issues the judgment may address include whether the EWS quota violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution; whether the reservation was contrary to the equality code to treat all equally without discrimination; and more importantly if the reservation ate into the future prospects of merit-based candidates.
The government maintained that the 10% quota was not an addition to the 50% ceiling on reservation. It said the EWS quota was an “independent compartment”. The court had repeatedly asked the government during the hearing whether the EWS quota would take a piece of the pie from the 50% available non-reserved or open category who compete purely on the basis of merit. The court had also questioned the exclusion of backward classes from availing the quota.
The government has said it will increase seats by 25% in its institutions to accommodate the EWS quota.
Dr. Mohan Gopal, in his rejoinder, had said this was the first time that being a member of the forward classes has been made a pre-requisite for getting government assistance.
Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj submitted that fundamental rights are individualistic and the government’s justification for excluding SC, ST and OBCs on the ground that they already take benefit of the 50% quota does not hold water.
Senior advocate P. Wilson had asked whether it was possible to uplift through reservation. He said reservation was not a poverty alleviation scheme.
Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh argued that a reservation based solely on economic criterion cannot be sustained in the Constitution.
Advocate V.K. Biju had supported the quota, contending that the amendment was democratically passed and not a fraud on the Constitution. He said it was a step towards a casteless society.
[ad_2]
