In EWS verdict, a discrimination antithetical to equality

Source: The post is based on the article “In EWS verdict, a discrimination antithetical to equality” published in The Hindu on 12th November 2022.  

Syllabus: GS 2 – Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Relevance: About India’s reservation criteria.

News: The Supreme Court of India in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India case upheld the constitutional validity of granting 10% reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the upper castes.

What are the salient features of the 103rd constitutional amendment?

What are the Supreme Court rulings on the 103rd constitutional amendment?

Can the state provide reservations and alter the reservation criteria?

The 103rd amendment provides reservation exclusively on economic grounds. The Constitution demands equality, but it does not tether Parliament to any precise version of the concept.

So State could plausibly be acting within its power in deciding that a classification resting solely on economic status furthers substantive equality. Further, the inclusion of an additional layer of affirmative action does not by itself rise to the level of a basic structure violation.

What will be the impact of the recent judgement?

Reservations permitted for SC, ST and OBCs are intrinsic to the guarantee of equality. This position has been regarded as an axiom of constitutional law at least since the five-judge Bench ruling in the State of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas (1975).

This is because they together constitute 82% of the country’s population. By reversing the existing logic of affirmative action the court opened the pandora’s box of more such reservation requests. This in the long run creates a form of discrimination that is antithetical to what equality truly demands.