SC upholds 10% reservation for economically weaker sections !

Verdict of a 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

New Delhi – The Supreme Court upheld the decision taken by the Union Government to give 10% reservation to the economically weaker sections of the general category in the year 2019. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court. After a hearing before a 5-judge constitution bench, the judgement was given on 7th November. In this, 3 out of 5 judges expressed their opinion in favour of reservation, while two judges expressed their opinion against it. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice JB Pardiwala were among those who spoke in favour of reservation, while Chief Justice Uday Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhatt spoke against. The Union Government introduced reservation for economically weaker sections in education and Government jobs in January 2019 under the 103rd constitutional amendment. More than 30 petitioners, including Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging this. The Constitution Bench had reserved its verdict on this matter on 27th September.

1. These petitions challenged the amendments to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. ‘Reservation on economic grounds is unconstitutional. The Government enacted the reservation law without collecting the necessary information. The Supreme Court had decided to limit the reservation to 50%, this provision has also been violated’, the petitions mentioned.

2. Arguing this, the Union Government had told the Court that the 50% cap on total reservation is not a constitutional provision, but only a verdict of the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu has 68% reservation. This was approved by the High Court. Even the Supreme Court has not given adjournment. Necessary amendments were made in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution before the reservation act was enacted. This arrangement is necessary to give equal status to the economically weaker sections. The Government has not crossed the 50% reservation cap. In the year 1992, the Supreme Court had ruled that ‘no more than 50% reservation should be given, so that the remaining 50% seats will be left for general category people’. This reservation is only for the general category people falling in 50%. The option of reservation has been made available to eradicate social discrimination. Reservation was not given to eradicate poverty.

What did the judges say ?

1. Justice Bela Trivedi: Parliament’s decision should be viewed positively. The Constitution has given the right to equality. Look at this decision in that light. 103rd Amendment is correct. As we are completing 75 years of independence, we should rethink our reservation system keeping in mind the interest of society.

2. Justice Pardiwala: Reservation should not continue for an unlimited period. By doing so, it is misused for selfish purposes.

3. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari: Reservation for economically weaker sections is not a violation of fundamental rights.

4. Justice Ravindra Bhatt: All categories should be given reservation on a financial basis. Scheduled castes and tribes are not included in the Government’s decision. I am not in favour of this reservation.

Who will benefit from reservation ?

Those with less than 5 acres of land, less than 900 square feet house and less than ₹8 lakh annual income will get the benefit of this reservation.