Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022): Landmark Case & Download PDF

The landmark case of Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022) dealt with the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019. The amendment introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. This amendment raised questions about whether economic criteria alone could justify reservations and whether excluding Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from the EWS quota was discriminatory. The case has important implications for reservation policy in India, prompting debate on the interplay between economic and social factors in affirmative action and the constitutional interpretation of equality provisions. Explore other important Landmark Judgements.

Introduction of Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022)

The landmark case of Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022) challenged the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. The Petitioners in Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India argued that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution by excluding Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from EWS reservations. The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority verdict, upheld the amendment, affirming the legitimacy of economic criteria as a basis for reservation while sparking debates on social justice and equality.

Download Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India PDF

The Janhita Abhiyan case centres around the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, which introduced a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. The main issue in Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India before the Supreme Court was whether economic criteria alone could be used as the basis for reservation and whether this amendment violated the fundamental structure of Indian Constitution. The following are the brief facts of the case of Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India -

Enactment of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019

On 9th January, 2019, the Parliament of India enacted the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, introduced a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in educational institutions and public employment. The amendment in Article 15 (6) and Article 16 (6) to the Constitution allowed the state to provide reservations based purely on economic criteria.

Impact on Existing Reservation System

The amendment ensured that the 10% EWS reservation would not modify the existing quotas for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). To implement this, the government mandated an increase in total seats rather than redistributing them. For example, if an institution had 100 seats, it would now have 110 seats, with the additional 10 seats reserved exclusively for EWS reservation candidates.

Exclusion of Minority Institutions

The amendment particularly exempted minority institutions protected under Article 30 of Indian Constitution and ensured that these institutions were not obligated to implement EWS reservations.

Eligibility Criteria for EWS Reservation

In order to qualify for the 10% reservation under the EWS reservation category, an individual must have the following requisites -

• Belong to the General category (not SC, ST, or OBC).
• Have an annual family income of less than Rs. 8 lakh.
• Own less than 5 acres of agricultural land.
• Possess a house smaller than 1000 sq. ft. in an urban area.

Constitutional Challenge in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India

The amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court, leading to the landmark judgement Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the reservation based on economic criteria violated the structure of the Indian Constitution. The case was heard by a 5 Judges Constitution Bench, which ultimately delivered a 3-2 split verdict on the matter.

Arguments of the Petitioners in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India

The Petitioners in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India raised various arguments challenging the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.

• Violation of the Basic Structure of the Constitution – The Petitioners in Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India argued that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment diminish the fundamental structure of the Constitution by giving reservations to individuals who have not historically faced social or educational discrimination but are only economically disadvantaged.
• Exclusion of SCs, STs and OBCs from EWS Quota – It was contended that individuals from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) also face economic hardships, yet they are not eligible for the 10% EWS reservation. This exclusion was considered as discriminatory.
• Contradiction with Indira Sawhney Judgment – The Petitioners in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India referred to the landmark judgement Indira Sawhney v Union of India case where it was held that economic criteria alone cannot be the sole basis for reservation. They contended that the EWS reservation infringes this precedent.
• Exceeding the 50% Reservation Cap – The Petitioners pointed out that the Indira Sawhney judgment also upheld a 50% cap on total reservations, which could only be exceeded in extraordinary circumstances. Since no such exceptional situation existed, the additional 10% reservation was deemed unconstitutional.

Arguments of the Respondents in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India

The Respondents in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India defended the 103rd Constitutional Amendment by highlighting its role in promotion of social and economic justice.

• Ensuring Social and Economic Justice – The Respondents in Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India defended the 10% EWS reservation as an essential step towards achieving social and economic justice, which is a main principle of the Constitution.
• No Violation of the Basic Structure – It was contended that providing equal opportunities through economic-based reservations does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution but rather strengthens it by ensuring inclusivity.
• No Bias Against SC/ST/OBC Communities – The Respondents argued that the existing 50% reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs remains unchanged and they already receive economic and social support from the government.
• Recognition of Poverty as a Source of Inequality – The Respondents referred to previous Supreme Court decisions including M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore where the Court considered that poverty is a main factor contributing to social inequality

Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022) Issue addressed

The Supreme Court in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India analysed various important issues. The first issue was whether reservation could be granted only based on economic status. The second issue concerned the exclusion of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes from the scope of EWS reservations and whether such exclusion was constitutionally valid. The third issue questioned whether the 10% EWS reservation violated the 50% ceiling on reservations established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. The final issue in Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India dealt with whether the state could extend reservations to private educational institutions that do not receive government aid.

In the Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India, Article 15 and Article 16 of Constitution of India played a significant role. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Article 15 of Indian Constitution: Prohibits Discrimination by State

The following is the interpretation of Article 15 of Indian Constitution -

1. It prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The clause bolsters the principle of equality before the law.
2. It highlights the principle of equality and ensures that no citizen is subject to discrimination in public spaces and have -

• Access to shops, restaurants, public entertainment
• essential amenities like wells, bathing ghats and roads

Article 16 of Indian Constitution: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

Article 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and ensures that the state does not discriminate based on religion, caste, sex, or place of birth.

• Article 16(1) grants the right to be considered for public employment opportunities but does not guarantee employment.
• Article 16(2) ensures no discrimination based on religion, caste, sex, etc., in public employment.
• Article 16(3) allows the Parliament to legislate provisions for reserving certain posts for residents of specific states or regions.
• Article 16(4) empowers the state to provide reservations for backward classes in public services if they are underrepresented.
• Article 16(4A) permits reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes based on seniority if they are not adequately represented. The Article was inserted by 77th Amendment Act, 1995.
• Article 16(4B) also known as the Carry forward rule. It allows unfilled reserved vacancies to be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle without affecting the 50% reservation ceiling. Article 16(4B) was added by the 81st Amendment Act, 2000.
• Article 16(5) provides that appointments in religious or denominational institutions can prioritise individuals of that faith.
• Article 16(6) provides a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in public employment.

Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022) Judgment and Impact

On 7th November, 2022, a 3:2 majority decision in the EWS case the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) under Article 15 (6) and Article 16 (6) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India examined the amendment on the following grounds:

Basic Structure of the Constitution

The Supreme Court revisited the doctrine of the basic structure and referred to landmark judgments such as Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala. It ruled that while constitutional amendments can be analysed for violations of the basic structure, reservation itself is an enabling provision, not a part of the Constitution’s core framework.

The majority in the Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India held that reservation is meant to be a temporary measure to bring disadvantaged sections into the mainstream and that the EWS quota aligns with the principles of socio-economic justice. Therefore, the amendment did not modify the fundamental nature of the Constitution.

Exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs from EWS Quota

The Petitioners in Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India contended that excluding historically backward classes from the 10% EWS reservation violated the equality principle. However, the majority opinion stated that:

• SCs, STs, and OBCs already benefit from affirmative action under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4), ensuring social and educational upliftment.
• The EWS reservation does not infringe on existing reservations but provides an additional opportunity to economically weaker individuals from the general category.
• Even if some level of exclusion exists, it constitutes a reasonable classification, which is permissible under the Constitution.

Thus, the exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs from the EWS quota did not violate the basic structure.

Economic Criteria as the Sole Basis for Reservation

The Supreme Court in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India acknowledged that the Indian Constitution promotes economic democracy and distributive justice under Articles 38 and 46. It referred to M.R. Balaji vs. State of Mysore, and M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India, where poverty was recognized as an indicator of backwardness.

The majority in Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India held that while reservation under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) is based on social and educational backwardness, the Constitution does not prohibit the state from introducing affirmative action based purely on economic grounds.

The Court adopted a dynamic interpretation of the Constitution, stating that substantive equality requires extending benefits to all disadvantaged sections, including those suffering from economic hardship. Thus, the economic criterion for reservation was upheld.

Breach of the 50% Ceiling on Reservations

The Petitioners in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India contended that the EWS quota breached the 50% reservation limit set in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that:

• The 50% ceiling is not an absolute rule and can be relaxed in extraordinary circumstances.
• The EWS reservation is an enabling provision and does not automatically grant reservations beyond 50%; it allows the state to provide such quotas based on need.
• The state has the power to ensure substantive equality by making special provisions for disadvantaged sections.

Thus, breaching the 50% limit was deemed constitutionally valid.

Application of EWS Quota in Private Educational Institutions

The Supreme Court in Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India upheld the applicability of EWS reservations to private unaided institutions, referring to Pramati Trust vs. Union of India, which held that reservation policies can apply to private institutions under Article 29 and Article 30 of Indian Constitution.

Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India Final Verdict

The 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice U.U Lalit, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice S.R Bhat, Justice B.M Trivedi and Justice J.B Pardiawala upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, affirmed that the EWS reservation is constitutionally valid and does not violate the basic structure, equality principles, or reservation ceiling.

Conclusion

In Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022) the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, validating 10% EWS reservation based on economic criteria. The EWS case marked a shift in affirmative action; debates continue over its exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs. The EWS reservation judgment set a precedent for economic-based reservations, shaping future policy and legal interpretations.