Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

Introduction 

This case represents a pivotal moment in India's reservation jurisprudence, addressing the constitutional validity of economic criterion-based reservations. The Supreme Court examined whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment, introducing 10% EWS reservation while excluding SCs/STs/OBCs from its benefits, violated fundamental constitutional principles including the basic structure doctrine and equality provisions. 

• The case was heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising former Chief Justice Uday U. Lalit, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi, and Jamshed B. Pardiwala.

Facts

• On 9th January 2019, Parliament enacted the 103rd Constitution Amendment Act, inserting Articles 15(6) and 16(6) into the Constitution of India. 
• The Amendment introduced a maximum of 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in admissions to educational institutions (except minority institutions) and in public employment. 
• This 10% EWS reservation was in addition to existing reservations: Scheduled Castes (15%), Scheduled Tribes (7.5%), and non-creamy layer of Other Backward Classes (27%), bringing total reservations to 59.50%. 
• Beneficiaries of existing reservations (SCs, STs, and non-creamy layer OBCs) were specifically excluded from EWS reservations. 
• A batch of petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the Amendment, arguing that:  

(i) Reservations based solely on economic criteria were impermissible. 

(ii) Excluding SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs was discriminatory. 

(iii) The 10% additional reservation breached the 50% ceiling limit established in Indra Sawhney. 

(iv) Imposing reservations on non-State aided educational institutions violated equality rights. 

• The Union of India defended the Amendment, contending that economic criteria was a valid consideration for affirmative action and that Articles 15(6) and 16(6) conformed to the equality doctrine. 

Issues 

• Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment, providing reservation to economically weaker sections, violated the basic structure of the Constitution of India. 
• Whether the exclusion of SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from EWS reservation violated the right to equality. 
• Whether EWS reservations of up to 10% in addition to existing reservations violated the 50% limit on reservations established by earlier Supreme Court decisions. 
• Whether imposing reservations on private educational institutions not receiving State aid violated fundamental rights. 

Court's Observations 

Constitutionality of Economic Criterion for Reservations: 

• The Court unanimously held that reservations based exclusively on economic criteria are constitutionally permissible and help uplift the poorest segments of society. 
• Economic backwardness was recognized as not being confined only to those covered by existing reservations (SCs, STs, OBCs). 
• The Court emphasized that economic justice, recognized in the Preamble and Articles 38 and 46, justified such affirmative action. 
• However, Justice Bhat in his dissenting opinion distinguished between reservations for 'access' to public goods versus 'representation' in public employment, arguing that EWS reservations in employment would benefit already well-represented forward classes. 

Exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs from EWS Benefits: 

• The majority (3:2) held that the Amendment made a reasonable classification between "economically weaker sections" and other disadvantaged sections already benefiting from existing reservations. 
• The Court applied the principle that "just as equals cannot be treated unequally, unequals also cannot be treated equally." 
• Exclusion was deemed necessary to ensure intended beneficiaries received full benefits, similar to the creamy layer exclusion in existing reservations. 
• The majority reasoned that economically weaker strata of SCs, STs, and OBCs were already represented through existing reservation categories. 

Dissenting View on Exclusion: 

• Justice Bhat and Chief Justice Lalit held that excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from economic criterion-based reservations violated equality rights. 
• They emphasized that poverty affects everyone regardless of social backwardness, and for discriminated communities, poverty has more severe impacts. 
• The dissent questioned excluding 82% of the population (SC, ST, OBC combined) who would otherwise qualify for EWS benefits. 

50% Reservation Ceiling: 

• The majority held that the 50% ceiling established in Indra Sawhney was flexible and could be relaxed for compelling reasons in extraordinary situations. 
• Justice Maheshwari clarified that no Court decision prevented Parliament from enacting additional reservations when deemed necessary. 
• Justice Bhat cautioned against breaching the 50% rule, warning it could reduce equality rights to mere reservation rights. 

Private Educational Institutions: 

• Relying on Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, the Court affirmed that EWS reservations in private educational institutions under Article 15(6) did not violate equality rights. 
• Justice Bhat, while finding this issue irrelevant due to his conclusion of unconstitutionality, acknowledged that private institutions contribute to national educational goals. 

Conclusion 

The Janhit Abhiyan case represents a watershed moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, with the Supreme Court's 3:2 majority decision upholding the 103rd Constitution Amendment and legitimizing economic criterion-based reservations. The judgment established that economic backwardness alone can justify affirmative action, the 50% reservation ceiling is flexible, and reasonable classification can justify excluding existing beneficiaries from new schemes.