1. The EWS quota is not discriminatory and does not alter the basic structure of the constitution, said the majority judgement of a Supreme Court bench. Two judges dissented, including Chief Justice UU Lalit, who retires tomorrow.

2. Justice Ravindra Bhat, the other dissenting judge, said he supported quota for the economically backward, but the exclusion of the socially backward sections is not allowed in the constitution.

3. “Economic destitution, economic backwardness is backbone of this amendment and on this account, amendment is constitutionally indefeasible. However, excluding the classes such as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes (OBC) is not constitutionally permissible,” Justice Bhat said. The Chief Justice said: “I have concurred with the view taken by Justice Bhat. The decision stands at 3:2.”

4. The EWS quota was introduced through the 103rd constitutional amendment, cleared in January 2019 by the Centre soon after the ruling BJP lost the Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh elections. It was instantly challenged in the Supreme Court.

5. The quota bypassed affirmative action that benefits communities traditionally marginalised in Indian society, like the SC, ST and OBC.

6. Petitions had questioned how the quota could cross the 50 per cent national cap on reservation set by the Supreme Court in 1992 and whether it changed the “basic structure” of the constitution. The quota was “a deceitful and backdoor attempt to destroy concept of reservation”, said petitioners.

7. Most opposition parties, including the Congress, did not oppose the law. But as many as 40 petitions were heard by the Supreme Court against it, including by the state of Tamil Nadu, which has among the highest reservation in the country.

8. The case was first presented before three judges, who referred it to a larger five-judge bench in 2019. This September, the court held a marathon six-and-half-day hearing of the case and reserved its verdict.

9. The government argued that the quota would help bring people out of poverty and would not cut into existing reservation for backward classes or reduce seats for the general category.

10. In court, one of the judges, Justice JB Pardiwala, said reservation should not continue for an indefinite time so that it becomes a vested interest. “The ones who have moved ahead should be removed from backward classes so that ones in need can be helped. The ways to determine backward classes need a re- look so that ways are relevant in today’s time,” said the judge.

Post a comment