Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India

The story

When Parliament passed the 103rd Amendment in 2019, carving out a 10% reservation for economically poor citizens outside the SC/ST/OBC fold, it triggered fierce debate. Petitioners like Janhit Abhiyan approached the Supreme Court, arguing that reservations had always been tied to social and educational backwardness, not mere poverty, and that shutting out SC/ST/OBC citizens from this new quota was unfair given many among them were equally poor. The government defended the law as a fresh, additional net for the poor, distinct from existing caste-based reservations. Over marathon hearings, a five-judge bench wrestled with decades of precedent, especially the sacred 50% cap set in Indra Sawhney. In November 2022, the Court delivered a fractured but decisive verdict: by 3:2, it upheld the amendment, ruling economic criteria alone could justify reservation and that the 50% ceiling was not carved in constitutional stone. For millions of poor general-category families, the ruling meant new access to reserved seats in colleges and jobs, reshaping India's reservation landscape even as two dissenting judges warned against diluting long-fought equality principles.

The facts

The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6), enabling the State to provide up to 10% reservation in education and public employment for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among classes other than SC, ST and OBC. Several petitioners, including Janhit Abhiyan, challenged the amendment as violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, arguing that reservation solely on economic grounds was impermissible and that excluding SC/ST/OBC from the EWS quota was discriminatory. The matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

The question before the court

Whether the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing 10% EWS reservation based purely on economic criteria, and excluding SC/ST/OBC candidates from its ambit, violates the basic structure of the Constitution, including the equality code and the 50% reservation ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney.

The holding

By a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 103rd Amendment. The majority held that reservation exclusively on economic criteria does not violate the basic structure, that the equality code under Articles 14, 15 and 16 permits such affirmative action, and that excluding SC/ST/OBC candidates (who already benefit from separate reservations) from the EWS quota does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The Court also held that the 50% ceiling on reservations articulated in Indra Sawhney is not an inviolable constitutional principle and can be breached by constitutional amendment in exceptional circumstances, though two judges dissented on this point and on the exclusion issue.

The principle it stands for

Economic status alone can constitute a valid basis for affirmative action under the Constitution, separate from social and educational backwardness. The 50% ceiling on total reservations is a judicially evolved guideline rather than an inflexible basic structure requirement, and Parliament may exceed it through constitutional amendment for compelling reasons. Excluding groups that already receive reservation benefits from a distinct new reservation category does not constitute hostile discrimination violating equality.

Provisions this case shaped

• Art. 15Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birthinterpreted — Article 15(6) permitting EWS reservation in education was interpreted and upheld.
• Art. 16Equality of opportunity in matters of public employmentinterpreted — Article 16(6) permitting EWS reservation in public employment was interpreted and upheld.
• Art. 14Equality before lawlimited — Equality principle under Article 14 held not violated by economic-criteria reservation excluding SC/ST/OBC.