Sequence of implementation, EWS quota outcomes

Source: The post is based on an article “Sequence of implementation, EWS quota outcomes” published in The Hindu on 1^st November 2022.

Syllabus: GS 2 – Governance

News: The main aim of the reservation policy in India was to ensure the level playing field for the most marginalized and backward sections of the society.

However, with the time the scope of reservation expanded which led to the debate over the exclusion and inclusion of the beneficiaries of reservation.

How reservation Indian is given?

The reservation in India has two forms: a) Vertical Reservation (VR), b) Horizontal Reservation (HR).

Vertical Reservation included reservation to different marginalized social groups such as SC, ST, and OBC. Horizontal Reservation is the reservation given to women, people with disability (PWD), domicile, etc. across each vertical category.

Vertical reservation system was social-group based which made individual eligible only for a single reservation category.

What is 103rd Constitution Amendment Act, 2019 and what changes were made in the Act?

It provided 10% quota for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). This EWS quota changed the intent of reservation which was usually based on social group identity (caste or tribe).

The amendment explicitly removed individuals who are already eligible for one VR (SC, ST, or OBC) from the scope of EWS reservations. This means that a person belonging to SC category cannot avail the quota under EWS category as that individual already has reservation under SC category.

This exclusion was immediately challenged in court on the grounds that it violated individual right to equality (Art. 14-18).

What are the problems with EWS quota?

Contradicts Indra Sawhney case: The Indra Sawhney case (1992) said that open-category positions must be allocated based on merit in the first step, and VR positions should be allocated to eligible individuals in the second step.

This procedure is called “over-and-above” choice rule and this rule distinguishes from the “guaranteed minimum” rule.

The guaranteed minimum rule guarantees a minimum number of positions to members of beneficiary groups, regardless of whether they enter through reserved or open (“merit”) positions.

Proper Sequencing: Multiple VR categories make sequencing important. This means putting a category after other categories and in a right place so that the proper beneficiaries can avail the benefits.

The current income limit for EWS reservation qualifies almost 98% of the population. Therefore, putting EWS before other categories will make it to fill first which will make EWS to be treated as open positions and the purpose would not be served.

So, it would be better to put the EWS category at the last after other VR categories. This will ensure that quota under other categories is filled by the respective beneficiaries such as SC, ST or OBC making EWS quota more accessible to forward castes.

What is the way forward?

Putting EWS category at the first or at the last all depends on the objectives that the government is aiming to achieve.

If the objective is to make EWS equally applicable to the current VR categories, then EWS-first should be adopted and if the objective is to minimally interfere with the amendment, then EWS-last should be adopted.

Further, lowering the income limit is also not a probable solution as poorer individuals from all social groups (including non-SC-ST-OBC) would be eligible and this would further create confusions.

Therefore, court should take proper stand after considering all the aspects and implications of the EWS quota.