Economically Weaker Sections reservation

Also called: EWS quota, Article 15(6), Article 16(6) · Topic: Safeguards for Vulnerable Sections: SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities, Women and Children · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 4 "Executive"

Meaning

Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation is a quota of up to 10% in admissions to educational institutions (Art. 15(6)) and in public jobs (Art. 16(6)). It is for poor persons who are not covered by the SC, ST or OBC quotas. It was added by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 and upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022).

It is the first quota based only on economic criteria. Earlier quotas were based on social backwardness. In Janhit Abhiyan the Court also held that the 50% ceiling applies only to SC, ST and OBC quotas, and not to this new one [2].

Explanation

How the quota works

• Art. 15(6): the State may make special provisions for EWS, including reservation in admissions.
• This covers private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided.

• It does not cover minority institutions under Art. 30(1) (schools and colleges that religious or linguistic minorities set up and run).

• Art. 16(6): the State may reserve posts in public employment for EWS.

• Size: up to 10%. This is in addition to the existing SC, ST and OBC quotas, not carved out of them.
• Who is left out: anyone who already belongs to a group with its own quota (SC, ST or non-creamy-layer OBC).

Who counts as EWS (central criteria)

These rules come from DoPT OM No. 36039/1/2019-Estt.(Res), dated 31 January 2019 [4]. An OM (Office Memorandum) is an executive order issued by a government department.

• Income test: gross annual family income below ₹8 lakh from all sources, including salary, agriculture, business and profession [4].
• Asset test: a family is not EWS, whatever its income, if it owns any of these [4]:
• 5 acres of agricultural land or more;
• a residential flat of 1,000 sq ft or more;
• a residential plot of 100 sq yards or more in notified municipalities;

• a residential plot of 200 sq yards or more outside notified municipalities.

• Adding up property: land or property a family owns in different places is added together for the asset test [4].

Why a constitutional amendment was needed

• The 1992 block:
• In Indra Sawhney (1992), the Court struck down a 10% quota for poor forward castes (OM of 25 September 1991).
• Its reason: Art. 16(4) speaks of a "backward class", and backwardness there is social, not only a matter of income.

• At that time no constitutional provision supported a quota based only on poverty.

• The 2019 fix:

• Parliament added the new Arts. 15(6) and 16(6).
• These give the economic quota express constitutional backing, without depending on Art. 15(4) or 16(4).

Limits

• The quota is capped at 10%.
• Minority institutions are kept out of the education quota.
• It is open to judicial review (the courts' power to strike down laws and amendments). Like any amendment, it must not damage the basic structure: the core features of the Constitution, such as equality and the rule of law, which even an amendment cannot destroy.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional home: Art. 15(6) (education) and Art. 16(6) (public jobs), added by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 (January 2019).
• Who uses it: the Union and the States, in admissions and government posts. The Centre's eligibility rules are in the DoPT OM of 31 January 2019 [4].
• Background cases:
• M.R. Balaji (1962): first said reservation should generally stay below 50%. This is the start of the judge-made fifty per cent ceiling (the rule that total reservations should normally stay within 50%).

• Indra Sawhney (16 November 1992): nine judges, 6:3. Reservation under Arts. 15(4) and 16(4) should not exceed 50% [3]. The economic-only 10% quota was struck down.

• Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (7 November 2022): a five-judge bench upheld the 103rd Amendment by 3:2 [2].

• Majority: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala.
• Dissent: CJI U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
• Three challenges, all argued as breaches of the basic structure [2]:
  1. reservation based on economic criteria alone;
  2. excluding SCs, STs and non-creamy-layer OBCs from EWS;
  3. an extra 10% that breaches the 50% ceiling.
• Majority held:
  • An economic criterion alone is a valid basis for reservation [2].
  • Excluding the SC, ST and OBC poor does not violate the basic structure, because these groups already have their own quotas.
  • The 50% ceiling is not inflexible, and it applies only to SC, ST and OBC reservations [2] under Arts. 15(4) and 16(4).
  • Pardiwala J added that reservation cannot go on forever and should be reviewed over time.
• Dissent (Bhat J, with Lalit CJI):
  • Economic criteria as such are acceptable.
  • But keeping the poorest (poor SCs, STs and OBCs) out of a scheme meant for the poor is exclusion. It breaks the equality code (Arts. 14–16), which is part of the basic structure.
  • Allowing a breach of the 50% ceiling could lead to more breaches.

Don't confuse with

• 10% quota of the 1991 OM: this also gave 10% to the poor among forward castes. It was an executive order with no constitutional backing, and it was struck down in Indra Sawhney (1992). EWS rests on the 103rd Amendment and was upheld in 2022.
• OBC reservation under Art. 15(4)/16(4): this is based on social and educational backwardness, and it falls within the 50% ceiling [3]. EWS is based only on income and assets, and the ceiling does not apply to it [2].
• Creamy layer: this is the better-off part of a backward class, which is kept out of the OBC quota. EWS is the opposite idea. It adds a quota for the poor who are outside the backward classes. Both use the same ₹8 lakh income figure, so do not mix them up.
• Art. 16(4B) backlog (81st Amendment, 2000): unfilled reserved vacancies that are kept outside one year's 50% ceiling. This is about carrying over old SC, ST and OBC vacancies. It is not a new quota for a new group.

Prelims Hooks

• 103rd Amendment (2019) added Art. 15(6) (education) and Art. 16(6) (public jobs). The quota is up to 10%, in addition to existing quotas.
• The EWS education quota covers private aided and unaided institutions, but not minority institutions under Art. 30(1).
• DoPT OM (31 January 2019): family income below ₹8 lakh. A family is excluded if it owns ≥5 acres of farmland, a ≥1,000 sq ft flat, or a residential plot of ≥100 sq yd (notified municipality) / ≥200 sq yd (elsewhere) [4].
• Janhit Abhiyan (7 November 2022, 3:2): Maheshwari, Trivedi and Pardiwala formed the majority. Trap: the Chief Justice (U.U. Lalit) was in the minority, along with Bhat J.
• Case–principle pair: Indra Sawhney (1992) said an economic criterion alone is not valid under Art. 16(4). Janhit Abhiyan (2022) said an economic criterion alone is valid under the new Arts. 15(6)/16(6) [2].
• Trap: the 50% ceiling is judge-made (Balaji, then Indra Sawhney). No article states it, and per Janhit Abhiyan it binds only SC, ST and OBC quotas [2].

Mains Points

• Social vs economic idea of disadvantage:
• EWS widens reservation from historical caste injustice to present poverty, and it helps the poor in every community.
• Risk: the ₹8 lakh limit is the same as the OBC creamy-layer limit. That makes the "poor" category very wide.

• Risk: leaving out poor SCs, STs and OBCs raises the equality-code concern that the dissent pointed out.

• The 50% ceiling under strain:

• Janhit Abhiyan made the ceiling flexible and limited it to caste-based quotas [2].
• States such as Tamil Nadu (69%), Maharashtra and Bihar want to go above 50%, but courts still ask them to prove an extraordinary situation.

• This leaves two different standards in place, which could lead to more breaches of the ceiling.

• Judicial–legislative dialogue and reform:

• The Court rejected the economic quota in 1992. Parliament then used its constituent power (its power to amend the Constitution) to bring it back through the 103rd Amendment, and the Court upheld it.
• Reform ideas: periodic review or sunset clauses (time limits), as Pardiwala J suggested; better quantifiable data to justify quota sizes; and tighter EWS limits so that the benefit reaches the truly poor.

Related concepts

• M.R. Balaji case
• Carry-forward rule
• 81st Constitutional Amendment Act 2000
• Indra Sawhney case
• Fifty per cent ceiling on reservations
• Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation
• Maratha reservation case
• 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act 2019
• Janhit Abhiyan case

Read more

• Reservation case law I: the 50% ceiling from Balaji to Janhit Abhiyan