Research on EWS reservation quota in India

Contents:-
1. Introduction
2. What is the latest judgment regarding the same?
3. Findings

1. Introduction:
EWS (Economically Weaker Section) in India is a set of individuals who
belong to the unreserved category the annual family income is less than
Rupees 8 lakhs. These individuals are separate from the SC/ST/OBC
category. The government of India has introduced a 10% reservation for this
economically backward section of society other than OBC, SC, and ST,
except for PH and Ex-servicemen criteria. The Supreme Court, recently,
upheld the validity of the Constitution (103rd) Amendment, which came into
effect in January 2019, providing 10 percent reservation to people belonging
to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
The EWS quota provides reservations to financially weaker persons in the
general category. The central government has come out with certain
parameters that states can use to identify who belongs to the economically
weaker sections.
 There are many criteria, the primary being that the person or his
family's annual income is below Rs 8 lakh.
 A person coming under the EWS category should not possess more
than 8 acres of agricultural land. Those with residential flats below
1,000 square feet, or residential plots below 100 square yards in
notified municipalities and 200 square yards in other municipalities
are also eligible for reservation under the EWS quota. As per the
amendment, the Centre has set aside the 10 percent quota, but the state
must decide who is economically weaker.
The central government released a memorandum in January that details the
criteria and how an Income Certificate can be generated to avail of the
quota.
After fulfilling the above-mentioned eligibility criteria, the concerned
government issues an EWS certificate. The certificate is also known as the
 “Income and Assets Certificate”. The authorities who can issue the
certificates are mentioned below:

1. District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/Collector/Deputy

Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner/1st Class Stipendary
Magistrate/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Taluka Magistrate/Executive
Magistrate/Extra Assistant Commissioner

2. Chief Presidency Magistrate/Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate/

Presidency Magistrate

3. Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar and

4. Sub-Divisional Officer of the area where the candidate and his family
normally reside.

2. What is the latest judgement regarding the same?

Neil Aurelio Nunes (EWS Reservation) v. Union of India1
The amendment passed by the Parliament in January 2019 suggested providing for
economic reservation in jobs and education by inserting clause (6) in Articles 15
and 16. Except for minority educational institutions covered by Article 30 and
private schools, whether aided or unaided, the newly added Article 15 (6) allows
the state to make specific measures for the advancement of any economically
weaker sector of citizens (1). Additionally, it adds that the maximum reservation
will be 10% in addition to the current reservations. Following the president's
notification of the modification, several petitions contesting the constitutionality of
economic reservation were submitted to the SC.
The Particular matter has been heard, and the following arguments have been
made:-
1. Reservations cannot be based merely on economic criteria, given the
Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 2(1992).

1
Neil Aurelio Nunes (EWS Reservation) v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 64
2
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
 2. SCs/STs and OBCs cannot be excluded from economic reservations, as this
would violate the fundamental right to equality.
3. The 103rd Amendment introduces reservations that exceed the 50% ceiling
limit on reservations, well-known by the Indra Sawhney case.
4. Imposing reservations on educational institutions that do not receive State
aid violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India3
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of
the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for
Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.
While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the
103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting
judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit concurred
with the minority view of Justice Bhat
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari stated that there were three main issues in the case:
1. Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment is violative of basic structure for
providing reservation solely on the basis of economic criteria.
2. Whether the amendment is violative of basic structure for excluding the poor
among the SC/ST/OBC categories from EWS Quota.
3. Whether the amendment is violative of the basic structure for breaching the 50%
ceiling limit.
According to the majority view, the amendment is not violative of the basic
structure on any of the above issues.
As per the majority view of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB
Pardiwala, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate
the basic structure of the Constitution. They have also held that breach of 50%
ceiling limit by EWS reservation does not violate basic structure.
"Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action by State so as to ensure all-
inclusive approach. It is an instrument not only for inclusion of socially and
educationally backward classes...Reservations for EWS does not violate basic
3
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India WP(C) 55 OF 2019
structure on account of 50% ceiling limit because ceiling limit is not inflexible,"
the majority judgment by Justice Maheshwari said.

Justice Trivedi in her judgment said that the State has come out with amendment
for advancement of EWS categories. She observed,
"The impugned amendment has to be treated as an affirmative action by the
Parliament for the benefit of EWS class. It cannot be said to be unreasonable
classification...Treating EWS as separate class would be a reasonable
classification. Just as equals cannot be treated unequally, unequals cannot be
treated equally. Treating unequals equally violates equality under the
Constitution...The amendment creates a separate class of EWS. The exclusion of
SEBCs cannot be said as discriminatory or violative of Constitution."

Justices Trivedi and Pardiwala also made observations in the judgment regarding
the need to have a time-span for reservations.