SC refuses to stay 10% quota for EWS in govt jobs and education

SC refuses to stay 10% quota for EWS in govt jobs and education institutions

The Supreme Court defers to a bunch of pleas challenging the Centre's decision to grant 10 percent reservation in jobs and admissions to candidates of economically weaker sections (EWS).

The apex court had earlier refused to stay the Centre's decision to grant 10 percent quota in jobs and admissions to poor candidates in the general category. However, the court had agreed to examine the validity of the law and issued a notice to the Centre on the pleas.

One of the petitioners has sought quashing of the Constitution (103 Amendment) Act, 2019, saying economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for reservation.

About 103 Amendment Act, 2019 :-

The Centre has come out with the constitutional amendment bill giving quota benefits to the poor among general category candidates. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha cleared the bill on January 8 and 9 respectively, and it has been signed by President Ram Nath Kovind.

The 103rd Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, introduces 10% reservation for economically weaker sections of society for admission to Central Government-run educational institutions and private educational institutions (except for minority educational institutions), and for employment in Central Government jobs. The Amendment does not make such reservations mandatory in State Government-run educational institutions or State Government jobs. However, some states have chosen to implement the 10% reservation for economically weaker sections.

Currently, the quota can be availed by persons with an annual gross household income of up to ₹8 lakh (US$12,000).

The Act amends Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution by adding clauses empowering the government to provide reservation on the basis of economic backwardness. This 10% economic reservation is over and above the 50% reservation cap.

What does the petitioner says ?

The petitioner has said the bill violates the basic feature of the Constitution as reservation on economic grounds cannot be limited to the general category and the overall 50 percent ceiling limit cannot be breached. As it was fixed by a nine-judge Bench in the Indra Sawhney case. Further, the 1992 judgment had barred reservation solely on economic criterion.

Indra Sawhney Case :-

In a 6:3 majority verdict, the apex court, in Indra Sawhney, had held that “a backward class cannot be determined only and exclusively with reference to economic criterion... It may be a consideration or basis along with and in addition to social backwardness, but it can never be the sole criterion”.

One of the most important parts of the 1992 verdict was that ‘backward classes’ mentioned in Article 16(4) of the Constitution can be identified only on the basis of caste and not economic conditions.

Post a Comment


  1. If its not fever with general people then what use of constitution which support one side of people burn this constitution which against general

    1. I understand your point but this is how government runs & we cannot do about it but i do support the idea of no reservation for all but we have to make sure before removing the Reservation they also get the schools to study, equal behaviour from this general society , everything should be equal. :)

      These are my personal views so no offence