Authored By: Devanshu Singh Chandel
Bundelkhand University Jhansi
INTRODUCTION
The debate around reservation in India has always been intense, emotional, and full of history. It’s not something you can understand in one evening or by scrolling through social media. The whole idea grew out of centuries of discrimination. When the framers of the Constitution talked about equality, they didn’t mean an empty, idealistic version. They meant real equality, where people who were crushed for generations could finally stand at the same starting line.
For decades, reservation has been linked with caste-based backwardness. SC, ST and later OBC groups were covered because their disadvantage wasn’t short-term or accidental. It was built into the social structure of India.
Then, suddenly in 2019, things took a sharp turn with the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. The government brought in a ten percent reservation for “Economically Weaker Sections” (EWS). This category was based purely on income. No caste factor. No historical injustice. A clean economic filter.
And because of that, the whole country, including the courts, legal scholars, and students like us, started asking a simple question: Is this still reservation as the Constitution imagined it? Or are we slowly rewriting the meaning of equality?
This article is my attempt to understand the issue honestly. Not as an expert, because I’m not one. I’m a second-year student trying to make sense of a complicated constitutional moment that the Supreme Court itself couldn’t unanimously agree on.
BACKGROUND: WHATTHE 103RD AMENDMENT DID
The amendment inserted Article 15(6) and Article 16(6).
Both do something very specific:
they allow the state to give reservation solely based on economic disadvantage.
This is the first time in constitutional history that poverty alone became a sufficient ground for reservation.
But two things created the controversy:
Generated with https://kome.ai
- SC, ST and OBC were completely excluded.
Even if a person from these groups is as poor as someone else, they cannot be counted as EWS. The government’s justification was:
“Youalready have reservation elsewhere.”
People found this argument too simplistic.
- Totalreservation went above fifty percent.
For decades, India worked with the idea that reservation should not cross fifty percent. This came from Indra Sawhney (Mandal case, 1992).
Now the government was pushing total reservation to nearly sixty percent. And once the line is crossed once, it can be crossed again for any new demand. It was obvious this would reach the Supreme Court.
THE CHALLENGE: WHY PEOPLE SAID THE AMENDMENT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The petitions attacking EWS reservation weren’t random emotional reactions. They had clear reasoning.
- Reservation was meant for social backwardness, not individual poverty.
A poor Brahmin and a poor Dalit do not experience the same barriers. That’s just a social fact. The amendment pretended both struggles were identical.
- Excluding SC, ST,OBC is unfair.
How can you create a category called “economically weaker” and then remove lakhs of economically weak people from it?
It feels like defining a rule and then deliberately breaking it.
- Violating the 50 percent cap breaks the balance.
The 50 percent limit wasn’t a magical number. It was a way to keep equality alive. Without some limit, reservation can be pushed endlessly, especially by political pressure.
- It changes the soul of reservation.
Generated with https://kome.ai
Reservation is an instrument of social justice.
If it becomes a general poverty-alleviation tool, the original purpose gets diluted. And once the meaning shifts, more changes could follow.
THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT (2022): A 3–2 SPLIT
The case Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India was heard by a five-judge bench. The result wasn’t unanimous. It was close: 3 judges for the amendment, 2 against.
This itself tells you the issue is not “settled” in any real sense. Even within the judiciary, the disagreement is deep.
THE MAJORITY VIEW (3 JUDGES) – WHY THEY UPHELD IT
Economic reservation is constitutionally valid.
For them, poverty is also a form of disadvantage. The Constitution doesn’t forbid helping the poor.
The 50 percent cap is not rigid.
According to them, Indra Sawhney never said the limit was absolute.
It was more of a guideline.
(This point alone will create constitutional problems in the future.)
Excluding SC, ST,OBC is fine.
Their logic was that these groups already get reservation through other provisions. The state can make different schemes for different sections.
The Constitution is a living document.
If society changes, the Constitution can allow new remedies.
This sounds reasonable at first, but becomes shaky when you think about long-term implications.
THE DISSENT (2 JUDGES) – WHY THEY REJECTED IT
Generated with https://kome.ai
The dissenting judges wrote opinions that honestly feel more rooted in the logic of the Constitution.
- Excluding SC, ST,OBC violates equality.
If the category is “economically weak,”then why eliminate poor candidates from these groups? The exclusion looks artificially created to benefit primarily upper-caste poor groups.
- Economic disadvantage is not the same as social backwardness.
Reservation is not welfare. It’s a correction mechanism for historical injustice. The amendment mixes up two different ideas.
- Breaking the 50 percent limit destroys the reservation framework.
If the limit becomes flexible once, it becomes flexible forever.
Every future government will use reservation as a political tool.
- The amendment damages the basic structure.
The dissent says EWS quota distorts the concept of equality built into the Constitution. Their reasoning is sharp and straightforward. And honestly, many scholars agree with them. CRITICAL ANALYSIS(MY OWN UNDERSTANDINGAS A STUDENT)
This is where I’m going to be brutally straightforward.
- EWS reservation is politically smart but constitutionally messy.
It tries to fix real poverty, but reservation was never meant to fix poverty. It was meant to fix entrenched caste inequality.
The government basically used reservation to solve a problem that reservation was never designed for.
- The exclusion of SC/ST/OBC is the biggest flaw.
If the idea is helping the poor, you don’t get to choose which poor people are allowed to be poor.
The exclusion makes the whole thing look biased.
Generated with https://kome.ai
- The 50 percent cap is now broken.
This is not a small thing.
This will come back in future litigation.
States are already demanding more quotas.
- The majority judgment is too optimistic.
They assume the government will use this power responsibly.
But Indian politics doesn’t work like that.
Reservation is a weapon in elections.
- EWS tries to solve economic inequality with the wrong tool.
If the government wants to support economically weak people, it has better tools:
- scholarships
- financial aid
- job guarantees
- education support
- fee waivers
- skill programs
But reservation is a very strong constitutional tool, not something you experiment with casually.
- The dissenting judges are more aligned with constitutional principles.
Their argument is clearer:
- don’t dilute the original meaning of reservation
- don’t bypass equality
- don’t break the fifty percent limit
- don’t mix economic inequality with historical discrimination
They basically say:
“Help the poor, but don’t rewrite the Constitution in the process.”
WHERE THIS JUDGMENT LEAVES INDIA NOW
Whether we like it or not, the amendment is upheld.
But the questions it raises haven’t gone anywhere.
Generated with https://kome.ai
- Will other groups start demanding more reservation now?
Yes.It’s happening already.Once the 50 percent limit is broken, it opens a door that cannot be closed.
- Will reservation become a political bargaining chip?
Most likely. It already is.
- Will EWS reduce poverty?
Not significantly. Reservation gives seats, but not guaranteed economic upliftment. 4. Will this go back to a larger bench in the future?
Possibly.Especially if states keep crossing the limit.
- Does the Constitution’s approach to equality change now?
It might. That is the biggest long-term consequence.
CONCLUSION
The 103rd Amendment didn’t just add a new quota. It tilted the foundations of how India understands reservation, equality, and affirmative action.
The Supreme Court’s split judgment reflects the confusion and disagreement around this shift. The majority upheld the amendment, but the dissent is too strong to ignore. It signals that the EWS model may not be constitutionally stable forever.
For now, EWS reservation stands.
But its future, its fairness, and even its logic remain contested.
This debate is not over.
It has only started a new chapter.
Generated with https://kome.ai
