103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019
🔹 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019
✅ Background and Need
Before this amendment, the reservation system in India primarily benefited:
Scheduled Castes (SCs)
Scheduled Tribes (STs)
Other Backward Classes (OBCs)
These reservations were based on social and educational backwardness, not economic status.
However, it was argued that economically weaker sections (EWS) among the upper castes or forward classes were not able to access similar benefits despite being poor.
To address this gap, the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 was enacted to provide 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from the general category, i.e., those not covered under existing SC, ST, or OBC quotas.
✅ Key Features of the 103rd Amendment
➤ Amendment of Article 15
Clause (6) was inserted in Article 15.
It enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of EWS, including reservation in educational institutions.
Includes private unaided institutions (except minority institutions under Article 30).
➤ Amendment of Article 16
Clause (6) was inserted in Article 16.
Allows the State to provide reservation in public employment to EWS.
➤ Cap on Reservation
The 10% EWS reservation is in addition to the existing reservations (50% for SC, ST, and OBC).
This amendment breaches the 50% cap on reservations set by earlier judgments but justifies it on grounds of economic criteria and equity.
✅ Definition of EWS
While the Constitution does not define “EWS”, the Government of India issued a notification prescribing criteria, which includes:
Annual family income below ₹8 lakh
Excludes individuals who:
Own agricultural land over 5 acres
Own residential flat over 1000 sq. ft.
Own a plot of certain size in notified municipalities
These criteria are administrative, and subject to change by the government.
✅ Objective of the Amendment
To provide equality of opportunity to the poor from the general category.
To recognize economic hardship as a valid ground for affirmative action.
To promote social justice by ensuring equitable access to education and employment.
To balance merit and affirmative action by expanding the scope of reservation.
✅ Major Case Law: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Verdict:
Several petitions challenged the 103rd Amendment on the grounds that it:
Violated the basic structure of the Constitution
Breached the 50% ceiling on reservations (set in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992)
Excluded SCs/STs/OBCs from the EWS quota, making it discriminatory
🧑⚖️ Judgment Highlights:
5-judge Constitution Bench delivered the judgment in November 2022.
Majority (3:2) upheld the 103rd Amendment as valid.
Key observations:
Economic criteria can be a valid basis for reservation.
Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action, not restricted to social backwardness alone.
Breaching the 50% cap is permissible under exceptional circumstances.
Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS quota is not discriminatory, as they already benefit from other reservations.
Dissenting Opinions:
Justices Bhat and Nagarathna dissented, arguing:
The amendment violates the basic structure by excluding socially and educationally backward classes from the EWS category.
Breaching the 50% reservation cap undermines the equality principle under Article 14.
✅ Constitutional and Social Significance
Marks a shift in reservation policy — from caste-based to economic-based affirmative action.
Introduces economic backwardness as a constitutional category for reservation.
Raises debates about:
Merit vs. social justice
Whether economic disadvantage should be equated with historic social discrimination
Judicial activism vs. parliamentary supremacy
✅ Criticism and Concerns
Violation of 50% cap set by Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney case (1992).
Seen as politically motivated and potentially inequitable, as it excludes backward classes from EWS quota.
Questions on how economic criteria are determined and whether they can truly identify the needy.
Raises concerns of “reservation within reservation” or reservation inflation.
✅ Summary Table
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Amendment | 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 |
| Purpose | 10% reservation for EWS in education and employment |
| New Provisions | Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) |
| Beneficiaries | Economically weaker sections from general (non-reserved) category |
| Reservation Cap | Exceeds the 50% ceiling set in earlier judgments |
| Key Case Law | Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) |
| Verdict Outcome | Amendment upheld by 3:2 majority |
| Significance | Introduces economic criteria as a constitutional basis for reservation |
✅ Conclusion
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 represents a historic and controversial change in India’s reservation policy. It has expanded the scope of affirmative action beyond caste and community lines to include economic deprivation, aiming to fulfill the promise of equality of opportunity under the Constitution.
Though upheld by the Supreme Court, it continues to spark debate on the future direction of reservations in India and the balance between equity, efficiency, and constitutional morality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments