Janhit Abhiyan & Others v. Union of India & Others
Bench: Constitution Bench — 5 Judges (U.U. Lalit CJ, Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi & J.B. Pardiwala JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to enable the State to provide up to 10% reservation in education and public employment for 'Economically Weaker Sections' (EWS) — defined primarily as persons with annual family income below Rs. 8 lakh who do not belong to SC/ST/OBC communities. This EWS reservation was over and above the existing 50% ceiling. Janhit Abhiyan and dozens of other petitioners challenged the amendment as violating: (1) the basic structure of the Constitution; (2) the 50% ceiling from Indra Sawhney; (3) the exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS benefits as arbitrary discrimination.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Does the 103rd Constitutional Amendment — enabling 10% EWS reservation — violate the basic structure of the Constitution?
- 2Does the EWS reservation breach the 50% ceiling from Indra Sawhney (1992)?
- 3Is the exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS benefits unconstitutionally discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15?
- 4Can economic criterion alone (without social/educational backwardness) form the basis for reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6)?
The Judgment
By a 3:2 majority, the Constitution Bench upheld the 103rd Amendment and the EWS reservation. The majority (Maheshwari, Trivedi, and Pardiwala JJ) held: (1) the amendment does not violate basic structure — it advances the constitutional goal of social and economic justice; (2) the 50% ceiling from Indra Sawhney is not an absolute rule — it can be exceeded by a constitutional amendment (though not by ordinary law); (3) the exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS is not arbitrary — they already have their own reservation category and including them in EWS would dilute their existing benefits. Chief Justice Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat dissented — finding the exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS to be arbitrary and discriminatory and finding it violates the basic structure's equality guarantee.
Key Principles Laid Down
EWS RESERVATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID (3:2 MAJORITY): The 10% EWS reservation enabled by the 103rd Amendment does not violate the basic structure. The Constitution's commitment to social and economic justice includes ensuring opportunities for economically weaker sections of the forward communities.
50% CEILING CAN BE EXCEEDED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: The Indra Sawhney 50% ceiling applies to reservations made under ordinary law. A constitutional amendment can validly exceed 50% — the ceiling is a limit on the State's legislative power, not on the constituent power to amend the Constitution.
ECONOMIC CRITERION ALONE CAN BE BASIS FOR RESERVATION: For the first time, the Constitution (through the 103rd Amendment) enables reservation based purely on economic criteria — without requiring social or educational backwardness. This is a significant departure from the pre-amendment position (Indra Sawhney held economic criterion alone insufficient).
EXCLUSION OF SC/ST/OBC FROM EWS IS VALID (MAJORITY): The majority held that excluding SC/ST/OBC from EWS is not arbitrary — they already have separate reservation categories. Mixing the categories would create anomalies. The State has reasonable grounds for the distinction.
DISSENT — EXCLUSION IS ARBITRARY (LALIT CJ AND BHAT J): The dissent held that excluding SC/ST/OBC from EWS reservation is discriminatory — there are economically poor persons in SC/ST/OBC communities who are as needy as EWS forward caste persons. The exclusion based on caste within the same economic class is arbitrary.
EWS APPLIES TO BOTH INITIAL APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION: Unlike OBC reservation, EWS reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) can apply to promotions as well, subject to appropriate conditions.
Impact on Indian Law
Janhit Abhiyan (2022) is one of the most consequential reservation law judgments since Indra Sawhney (1992). It upheld the EWS reservation, effectively creating a new category of constitutionally sanctioned economic reservation — a concept that Indra Sawhney had rejected. The 3:2 majority means the judgment is somewhat fragile constitutionally — the strong dissent by the Chief Justice indicates the question may be revisited if challenged before a larger bench. The judgment significantly expands reservation beneficiaries and reshapes the total reservation landscape in India. Together with Nagaraj (2006), Jarnail Singh (2018), and Indra Sawhney (1992), it completes the contemporary reservation law framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the 10% EWS reservation constitutional after Janhit Abhiyan (2022)?
Yes, by a 3:2 majority. The Constitution Bench upheld the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 enabling 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections. The majority held it does not violate the basic structure and the 50% ceiling from Indra Sawhney applies to ordinary law — not constitutional amendments. However, the 3:2 split and the strong dissent by the Chief Justice and Justice Bhat means the judgment's constitutional legitimacy continues to be debated.
Why are SC/ST/OBC excluded from the 10% EWS reservation?
SC/ST and OBC communities are excluded from EWS reservation because they have their own separate reservation categories under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4). The 103rd Amendment's intent was to benefit economically weaker sections of the 'general' (forward) category communities who had no existing reservation. The majority in Janhit Abhiyan upheld this exclusion as reasonable. The dissent found it arbitrary.
Does the EWS reservation exceed the 50% ceiling from Indra Sawhney?
Yes — total reservation now exceeds 50% in States that fully implement all categories: SC (15%) + ST (7.5%) + OBC (27%) + EWS (10%) = 59.5%. The Janhit Abhiyan majority held that the Indra Sawhney 50% ceiling applies to reservation made by ordinary legislative action — it can be exceeded by a constitutional amendment. The dissent disagreed, finding the ceiling is a basic structure element applicable even to constitutional amendments.