SC division Bench upholds reservation for EWS in a 3:2 ratio
In a split judgment in a ratio of 3:2, the Supreme Court on Monday, upheld the 10 per cent reservation quota for persons from economically weaker sections (EWS) in admissions and government jobs, ruling that it does not violate the basic structure and the equality code.
A five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Uday Umesh Lalit and comprised Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, and J B Pardiwala. While CJI Lalit and Justice Bhatt dissented against the EWS quota, the other three judges ruled in favour, leading to a 3:2 ratio judgement.
Disposing several writ petitions challenging the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, “These matters have been disposed of today by pronouncement of four separate judgments rendered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, for himself and on behalf of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi; and, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
“In view of the decision rendered by the majority consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the challenge raised to 103rd Amendment to the Constitution fails and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat remains in minority. Consequently, the Writ Petitions and other proceedings stand disposed of.
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari said that reservation on economic criteria does not violate basic structure. The ceiling limit of 50 percent is not inflexible, he added.
Giving a similar opinion, Justice Bela Trivedi agreed that the 103rd amendment is not violative of the basic structure. “At the end of 75 years of our independence, we shall revisit the reservation system," she said.
Justice J B Pardiwala also concurred with Justices Maheshwari and Trivedi. “Reservation isn’t the end, it shall not be allowed to become vested interest," he said.
Justice Ravindra Bhat dissented and said, “103rd amendment deludes us to believe that those having benefits of backward classes are somehow better placed." Excluding SCs, STs, OBCs from this amendment is unconstitutional, he added.