JANHIT ABHIYAN V. UNION OF INDIA

Case Title & Citation

Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India

Citation: (2022) 10 SCC 1

Court Name & Bench

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Constitutional Bench (5-judge bench)

Judges: 

➢ Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

➢ Justice Bela M. Trivedi

➢ Justice J.B. Pardiwala

➢ Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

➢ Chief Justice U.U. Lalit

Date Of Judgment

Date : 7^th November 2022

Parties Involved

• Petitioners: Janhit Abhiyan, NGOs, and individuals challenging the constitutionality of the 103^rd Constitutional Amendment
• Respondents: Union of India, supporting the amendment and its aim to provide reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among upper castes

Facts Of The Case

• The 103^rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 introduced Article 15(6) and Article 16(6), enabling the State to provide up to 10% reservation in education and public employment for EWS.
• EWS quota is exclusively for those who do not fall under existing SC/ST/OBC categories.
• Multiple writ petitions challenged the validity of this amendment, claiming it violated the basic structure of the Constitution by allowing economic criteria as the sole basis for reservation and by  excluding SC/ST/OBCs from its ambit.
• The case was referred to a Constitution Bench due to its significance. 6. Issues Raised
• Does the 103rd Constitutional Amendment violate the basic structure of the Constitution?
• Can economic criteria alone be the basis for affirmative action under Articles 15 and 16?
• Is the exclusion of SC/ST/OBCs from EWS reservation discriminatory? 7. Arguments Of The Parties

Petitioners’ Contentions:

• The amendment undermines the basic structure by breaching the 50% ceiling on reservation set in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). • Economic criteria alone cannot justify reservation under Articles 15 and 16.
• Exclusion of SC/ST/OBCs violates Article 14 (right to equality) and is arbitrary.

Respondent’s Contentions (Union of India):

• Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution to meet the needs of changing society.
• Economic disadvantage is a valid ground for affirmative action. • The amendment creates a separate class for EWS without disturbing existing reservations for SC/ST/OBCs.

Judgment / Final Decision

• Majority Verdict (3:2) : The 103^rd Constitutional Amendment is valid.
• Justice Maheshwari, Justice Trivedi, and Justice Pardiwala upheld the amendment.
• Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat dissented. • The Court ruled that economic criteria can be the sole basis for reservation. 
• Exclusion of SC/ST/OBCs from EWS quota is not discriminatory since they already benefit from existing reservations.

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• This judgment marked a significant shift in Indian affirmative action policy by allowing economic-based reservation.
• It validated the State’s efforts to uplift economically weaker sections among forward castes.
• While progressive in terms of economic inclusion, the dissent warns of a dilution of caste-based social justice.
• The case redefines the scope of Articles 15 and 16 and opens new jurisprudential debates on the nature and limits of reservation.

Conclusion / Observations

• This judgment marked a significant shift in Indian affirmative action policy by allowing economic-based reservation.
• It validated the State’s efforts to uplift economically weaker sections among forward castes.
• While progressive in terms of economic inclusion, the dissent warns of a dilution of caste-based social justice.
• The case redefines the scope of Articles 15 and 16 and opens new jurisprudential debates on the nature and limits of reservation.