CASE ANALYSIS:

Janhit Abhiyan V Union of India

Submitted by: Ananya Pandit

Class: BA LLB

Roll No.: 2K22LWUN01007

Introduction:

The Indian Parliament passed 133 amendments to the Constitution on January 9,

2019. This change was intended to extend the benefits of reservations and
employment opportunities in educational institutions to the economically weaker
segments of society (EWS).
This was accomplished by amending Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution and
inserting Articles 15(6) and 16(6) respectively.
The amendment empowered states to create special regulations for areas of economic
weakness in educational institutions and employment. However, since the
amendment passed, there has been considerable opposition, with 20 petitions filed
challenging its constitutionality.
The Supreme Court formed a constitutional court of five judges to rule on issues in a
three-to-two ratio.
The lawsuit focused primarily on the constitutionality and fundamental structural
principles of the proposed amendments. The court decision discussed in this article
analyzed the facts of the case, provided the basis for the decision and considered the
arguments presented by both sides.

FACTS:
 The Indian Parliament passed the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act on 9
January 2019. This change allowed states to make decisions about public office
and higher education based solely on economic factors. To implement this
change, the law amended Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, adding Articles
15(6) and 16(6) respectively.
 The President approved the amendment on January 12, 2019 and it was published
in the Official Gazette on the same day.
 As a result, on January 31, 2019, the Department of Personnel and Training
(DoPT) announced the Recruitment and Admission Criteria for Economically
Weak Sections (EWS) in accordance with the 103rd Amendment.
 Since its passage, more than 20 petitions have been filed challenging the validity
of the 103rd Amendment. These petitions challenge the constitutionality of the
amendments and raise concerns about their implementation and impact.
ISSUES:
The Supreme Court has identified three main issues in its decision on the validity of
the 103rd Amendment.

1. Economic Criteria Only: The Court concluded that a reservation rule based solely
on economic criteria violates the basic structure of the Constitution. Fundamental
doctrines refer to the basic principles and values that form the basis of the
Constitution and cannot be violated or violated.
2. Exclusion of SEBCs from the Special Provisions: Courts have made special
provisions for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), including
Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Lower Classes (OBCs).
Acknowledged exemption from regulations. Regulations The provisions for
Economically Vulnerable Sections (EWS) are discriminatory in nature. This exclusion
was seen as violating the basic constitutional structure supporting equality and non-
discrimination.

3. EWS booking limit: The court ruled that the EWS defined booking limit of 10%
violated the constitutional booking limit of €50. Violation of this reservation cap was
deemed a violation of the principle of equality and conditional case law as enshrined
by the constitutional authors.

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER:
Petitioner's attorneys objected to the validity of the 103rd Amendment, noting that:

1. Violation of the 50% Retention Cap: Counsel argued that the 10% retention
provided by the Amendment, in addition to the existing reservation, violated the 50
pence limit set by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney. They emphasized that
numerous Supreme Court and Supreme Court decisions over the decades have upheld
this upper limit of reservations, except where the law is protected by Schedule 9 of the
Constitution.

2. Deviation from the reservation's purpose: Attorneys argue that the reservation's
constitutional purpose is to create an egalitarian society by promoting socially and
educationally disadvantaged groups. Did. They argued that the amended law deviated
from this purpose by including those who experienced no social or educational
disadvantage.They argued that this deviation was a fraud against the Constitution
itself. and cited the MR Balaji case as corroboration.

3. Economic considerations alone are not enough: Petitioner's attorneys citing

historic judgments, including Indra Sawhney and MR Balaji, said Congress was
erroneous in using "social or educational backwardness" as a basis for reservations.
claimed. We are lagging behind socially and economically.” ” in the drafting of the
Amendment Act. They stressed that the purpose of the reservation, as explained in
Articles 15 and 16, is to ensure fair representation of underrepresented castes.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT:
Respondents presented their arguments, arguing that the revised law does not violate,
but reinforces, the basic principles of the Basic Law.
1. No effect on 50 pence of SEBC: The Attorney General has made a 10% reservation
for economically weaker sections (EWS) into reservations for socially and
educationally backward classes (SEBC), scheduled and set boxes. claimed not to
affect the applicable 50 pence. (SC) and scheduled trunks (ST). SEBC, SC and ST
benefit from existing reservation policies and their rights will not be affected. The
10% warning is an additional provision and does not violate the rights of these groups.

2. Respect for the Fundamental Framework: Defendants' counsel argued that the
violation of Article 14 (Equal Rights) of the Constitution did not constitute a violation
of the Constitution's Fundamental Principles. They argued that the revised law, which
would bring economic equity to economically vulnerable areas, would be consistent
with and strengthen the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

3. Right to a dignified life: The defendant's lawyer, her Ms Vibha Dutta Makhija,
argued that the rights of the economically disadvantaged derive from Article 21 of the
Constitution, which guarantees the right to a decent life. . She argued that poverty
erodes dignity and that it is the government's responsibility to eradicate poverty and
enable economically vulnerable people to live with dignity. In summary, the 10%
proviso does not affect the SEBC's existing proviso, the amended law maintains the
basic framework of the constitution and the economically vulnerable section proviso
is justified with the right to a decent life. It has been argued that As provided for in
Article 21.

JUDGEMENT:

In its decision on the EWS reservation, the Supreme Court affirmed the
constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment of 2019 by a 3:2 majority vote.

The justices who supported the maintenance of the Amended Act, including Bela M.
Trivedi, J.B. Pardiwala, and Dinesh Maheshwari, said the EWS reservation based on
income disparity did not violate basic constitutional principles. They argued that such
a proviso does not limit the rights of socially and educationally backward classes
(SEBCs). They emphasized the amendment's argument and justification to highlight
that the majority of EWS have been denied quality education due to financial
constraints, and that the amendment addresses this issue.

Meanwhile, Judge Ravindra Bhatt and Chief Justice of India Lalit took the minority
view and declared the amendment bill unconstitutional. Justice Bhat ruled that the
addition of Article 15(6) was unconstitutional because it excluded socially and
educationally disadvantaged representatives of society, thereby violating the Equality
Act. was dropped. In addition, Judge Bhat argued that Article 16(6) violated a
fundamental principle of the Constitution aimed at eliminating existing disadvantaged
classes and addressing the lack of representation of a particular community or class.
Therefore, it was determined to be invalid.

In summary, while the majority of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of
the Amendment Act, the minority opinion argued that the Amendment Act was
unacceptable for its exclusion of socially and educationally disadvantaged population
groups and violation of the basic principles of the Basic Law. was held to be
unconstitutional.
CONCLUSION:

Based on analysis of the 103rd Amendment and the Supreme Court's decision, India
continues to face severe poverty and inequality and concludes that strong measures
are needed to empower all sections of society. can be attached. The amendments
interpreted by the Supreme Court are consistent with the goal of achieving economic
justice for all, as set out in the preamble to the Constitution. The dissenting opinions
of UU Lalit Chief Justice and Ravindra Bhat Justice emphasized the historical
importance of the settlement as a means of redressing caste discrimination.

It is important to recognize that both social and economic backwardness coexist in

society and must be addressed together for the common good of society. The retention
policy implemented by the Amendment aims to address these two challenges and
promote social and economic inclusion.