New Delhi:  In January 2019, the central government made a provision to give 10 percent reservation to the economically weaker people of the general category. More than 40 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against this decision of the central government and after continuous hearings the Supreme Court on September 27, 2022 reserved its decision on the matter.  


COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

In today's DNA, Zee News' Rohit Ranjan analysed how the reservation for the economically weaker section (EWS) adheres to the guidelines of the constitution of India as the Supreme court upheld centre's decision to provide 10%  to economically weaker people of the general category today.


Today's decision by SC was given by a bench of 5 judges in which 3 judges expressed their opinion in favour of the reservation while 2 voted against the 10% EWS reservation quota. 



Chief Justice U U Lalit, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice S Ravindra Bhat gave the verdict on this matter. While Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice JB Pardiwala justified the reservation, Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat gave their opinion against the reservation.


While hearing the matter, the SC analysed the issue mainly on four points - First, is giving 10 percent reservation economically weaker section against the basic structure of the constitution, second, is it a violation of the fundamental right to equality in the constitution. Third, does the Constitution allow for reservation on economic grounds and fourth, whether the government has special provision with regard to admission in unaided private institutions?


Here's what judges of the Supreme Court said on 10% EWS reservation


Justice Dinesh Maheshwari said that "Giving reservation only on economic grounds is not a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution and the right to equality. 


"Giving reservation to economically backward people above the 50% limit of reservation is not a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. The limit of 50% reservation can be changed. It does not violate the right to equality," he said


Justice Bela M Trivedi said, "This judgment is not biased in any way. It is not wrong to give reservations to economically weaker people under EWS. SC, ST, OBC have already got reservations. EWS should be seen as helping economically weaker people."


The third Justice J B Pardiwala, who justified the reservation, said that "EWS quota is right. Reservation should not continue for eternity, as it will turn it into personal interest. Reservation is for eliminating social and economic inequality. It started 7 seven decades ago. Those who have become financially strong, and have progressed, they should be removed from the backward class, so that other people who need help can get help.


Justice JB Pardiwala directly held that the purpose of reservation is to strengthen the weak. What he said also emphasizes that the backward people who have become financially strong should no longer get the benefit of reservation which is continuing in the country even today.


However, Justice S Ravindra Bhat held the reservation on economic category wrong and said, "the amendment attacks the social structure of our society as it boycotts a group of people while our constitution does not allow boycott.  It is wrong to keep SC, ST, OBC apart from it. Allowing a breach of 50% will lead to division."


Chief Justice U U Lalit concurred with the view of "Justice S Ravindra Bhat". The 103rd Amendment is unconstitutional.