Janhit Abhiyan case

Also called: EWS case, Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India · Topic: Safeguards for Vulnerable Sections: SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities, Women and Children · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The Janhit Abhiyan case (Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 7 November 2022) is the judgment in which a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019. That amendment created a quota of up to 10% for economically weaker sections (EWS) [1]. The case matters because, for the first time, the Court accepted that poverty alone can be a basis for reservation. It also held that the 50% ceiling is not rigid and applies only to SC, ST and OBC quotas [1].

Explanation

What was challenged

• The 103rd Amendment (2019) added Art. 15(6) (EWS quota in admissions) and Art. 16(6) (EWS quota in public jobs).
• EWS reservation is a quota of up to 10% for poor people who are not covered by the SC, ST or OBC quotas. It is in addition to the existing quotas.
• The petitioners said the amendment damaged the basic structure. The basic structure means the core features of the Constitution, such as equality, the rule of law and judicial review, which even an amendment cannot destroy. They raised three challenges [1]: 1. Reservation based on economic criteria alone is invalid. 2. Leaving out SCs, STs and non-creamy-layer OBCs from EWS is unfair. 3. An extra 10% breaks the 50% ceiling.

The bench and the split

• Majority (3): Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala [1].
• Dissent (2): CJI U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat [1].
• The Chief Justice was in the minority. This is a common exam trap.

What the majority held

• Economic criteria alone are valid: a quota based only on income and assets is a lawful basis for reservation [1].
• Excluding SC, ST and OBC poor is valid:
• These groups already have their own quotas.

• So keeping them out of EWS does not violate the basic structure.

• The 50% ceiling bends:

• The ceiling is not inflexible [1].
• It applies only to SC, ST and OBC reservations [1], meaning those under Arts. 15(4) and 16(4).

• It does not limit the new Arts. 15(6) and 16(6).

• Pardiwala J's note: reservation cannot go on forever and should be reviewed over time.

What the dissent said (Bhat J, with Lalit CJI)

• Using economic criteria is acceptable in itself.
• But excluding the poorest is the problem:
• Poor SCs, STs and OBCs are among the poorest people.
• Keeping them out of a scheme meant for the poor is exclusion.

• This breaks the equality code (Arts. 14–16), which is part of the basic structure.

• Allowing the 50% ceiling to be crossed could lead to more breaches and break up the right to equality.

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits: Art. 15(6) and Art. 16(6), added by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 (January 2019).

• Art. 15(6) also covers private educational institutions, aided or unaided, except minority institutions under Art. 30(1).

• Central criteria for EWS: DoPT OM No. 36039/1/2019-Estt.(Res), 31 January 2019 [3]:

• Gross annual family income below ₹8 lakh from all sources [3].
• A family is not EWS if it owns 5 acres or more of farmland, a flat of 1,000 sq ft or more, or a residential plot of 100 sq yards or more in notified municipalities (200 sq yards or more outside them) [3].

• Property held in different places is added together [3].

• Why the amendment was needed: Indra Sawhney (1992)

• The 25 September 1991 Office Memorandum (OM) gave 10% to poor forward castes.
• On 16 November 1992, a nine-judge bench struck it down by 6:3. Art. 16(4) needs a "backward class", and in 1992 no part of the Constitution backed a quota based only on poverty.

• The same case fixed the 50% limit under Arts. 15(4) and 16(4) [2].

• How Janhit Abhiyan changed the law:

• The new Arts. 15(6) and 16(6) gave the economic quota express constitutional backing, so the 2022 Court upheld it.

• The 50% ceiling is judge-made. It began in M.R. Balaji (1962) and was confirmed in Indra Sawhney. It now covers only caste-based quotas [1].

• Contrast with the Maratha case (5 May 2021): in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil, the Court struck down the Maratha quota because there was no extraordinary situation to justify crossing 50% [4]. EWS survived because the majority placed it outside the ceiling altogether.

• Judicial–legislative dialogue: first the Court rejected the economic quota (1992). Then Parliament amended the Constitution (2019). Finally the Court upheld the amendment (2022).

Don't confuse with

• Indra Sawhney (1992): it struck down a 10% quota for poor forward castes made by an executive order (OM). Janhit Abhiyan upheld a 10% EWS quota made by a constitutional amendment.
• Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil / Maratha case (2021): it enforced the 50% ceiling against a caste-based (SEBC) quota [4]. Janhit Abhiyan held that the ceiling does not cover the economic EWS quota [1].
• Creamy layer: this means the better-off members of a backward class who are excluded from the OBC quota. EWS is a separate economic quota for those outside SC, ST and OBC. Both use the same ₹8 lakh income figure.
• M.R. Balaji (1962): it created the idea that reservation should generally stay below 50%. Janhit Abhiyan narrowed that idea to SC, ST and OBC quotas only.

Prelims Hooks

• Janhit Abhiyan (7 November 2022): five judges, 3:2, upheld the 103rd Amendment [1].
• Majority: Maheshwari, Trivedi, Pardiwala. Dissent: CJI U.U. Lalit and Bhat J. Trap: the Chief Justice dissented [1].
• 103rd Amendment (2019) → Arts. 15(6) and 16(6): EWS quota up to 10%, over and above existing quotas. It covers private institutions but not minority institutions (Art. 30(1)).
• Holding on the ceiling: the 50% limit is not inflexible and applies only to SC, ST and OBC quotas (Arts. 15(4)/16(4)) [1].
• EWS criteria (DoPT OM, 31 January 2019): family income < ₹8 lakh. Excluded if the family owns ≥5 acres of farmland or a ≥1,000 sq ft flat [3].
• Trap: the 50% ceiling is judge-made (Balaji, then Indra Sawhney). No article of the Constitution states it.

Mains Points

• Social vs economic criteria: the case widens the idea of reservation from past caste injustice to present poverty.
• Gain: it helps the poor in every community.

• Risk: the ₹8 lakh limit equals the OBC creamy-layer limit, so the "poor" group becomes very wide.

• Equality code debate: the dissent warned that keeping poor SCs, STs and OBCs out of a scheme for the poor is exclusion, which hurts Arts. 14–16. Weakening the 50% ceiling may also invite more breaches by states such as Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Bihar.

• Reform ideas: periodic review and sunset clauses (time limits), as Pardiwala J suggested. Other ideas are better quantifiable data to justify the size of each quota, and an honest review of whether the EWS income limit is set at the right level.

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
• Economically Weaker Sections reservation

Read more

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