Critically analyse the trajectory of reservation-related constitutional amendments (102nd–106th) and their implications for the basic structure doctrine.

Q. Critically analyse the trajectory of reservation-related constitutional amendments (102nd–106th) and their implications for the basic structure doctrine. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Five of the eight amendments enacted since 2014 — the 102nd to 106th — concern reservation and representation, making affirmative action the most amended terrain of the Constitution in this period [1]. Their trajectory reveals both a widening of social justice and a recurring contest with the basic structure doctrine.

Trajectory of the amendments - 102nd (2018): gave constitutional status to the NCBC under Article 338B, institutionalising OBC grievance redressal [1]. - 103rd (2019): introduced 10% EWS quota via Articles 15(6) and 16(6) — the first purely economic criterion for reservation [1]. - 104th (2020): extended SC/ST seat reservation under Article 334 and ended Anglo-Indian nominated seats [1]. - 105th (2021): restored States' power to identify SEBCs under Article 342A, reversing the centralising reading in the Maratha reservation case [2]. - 106th (2023): reserved one-third of Lok Sabha and Assembly seats for women through Articles 330A and 332A [3].

Implications for the basic structure - Validation: In Janhit Abhiyan (2022), the Court upheld the 103rd Amendment, holding that economic criteria and a breach of the 50% ceiling do not violate the basic structure [4]. This calibrates, rather than abandons, the Indra Sawhney ceiling. - Federal balance: the 105th shows Parliament using Article 368 to correct judicial interpretation — legitimate legislative response, yet it underlines that federalism itself is a basic-structure value. - Concerns: successive amendments risk diluting the equality code under Articles 14–16 if group identification lacks empirical backing; the 106th remains contingent on delimitation and Census [3]. - Contrast: the 99th Amendment's fate shows judicial review remains an effective outer limit [1].

The trajectory reflects a maturing dialogue rather than a collision — Parliament expands the beneficiary base while the judiciary tests each expansion against equality and federalism. Anchoring future quotas in credible caste-and-income data, and operationalising women's reservation promptly, would let affirmative action advance Articles 38 and 46 while keeping the basic structure intact.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Constitution (Amendment) Acts, 102nd onwards — Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice — text and subject-matter of the 102nd, 103rd, 104th and 99th Amendments 2. The Constitution (127th Amendment) Bill, 2021 — PRS Legislative Research — restoration of States' power to identify SEBCs (enacted as the 105th Amendment) 3. Women's Reservation Bill, 2023 — The Constitution (128th Amendment) Bill — PRS Legislative Research — one-third reservation via Articles 330A/332A; delimitation and Census linkage 4. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, Judgment dated 07.11.2022 — Supreme Court of India — EWS quota upheld; economic criteria and 50% ceiling not basic-structure violations