Review Petition Filed Against Supreme Court Verdict Upholding Centre's 10% EWS Quota

A Congress leader from Madhya Pradesh has filed a petition in the SC against its order upholding the Centre's decision on 10% reservation for the economically weaker section in the general category.

A Madhya Pradesh Congress leader has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the judgment upholding the Centre's decision on reservation for the economically weaker section. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Constitution's 103rd Amendment Act 2019, which provides for 10 per cent EWS reservation in the general category.

A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit delivered the verdict. The verdict was passed with a 3:2 majority as three judges upheld the Act while two judges passed a dissenting judgment.

CJI UU Lalit concurred with Justice Ravindra Bhat, who struck down the constitutional amendment on the EWS quota in his minority view. "Fifty per cent ceiling on quota cannot be breached and the EWS quota has to go," he said. "Our constitution does not permit exclusion and this amendment undermines the fabric of social justice and thereby the basic structure. This amendment is deluding us to believe that those getting social and backward class benefit is somehow better placed... By excluding the poor among SC/ST/OBC from economically backward classes, the amendment practices constitutionally prohibited forms of discrimination," Justice S Ravindra Bhat said

The majority bench which upheld the amendment, comprised Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala. Justice Maheshwari said the EWS amendment does not violate the equality code or violate the essential features of the Constitution and the breach of 50% does not violate the basic structure.

The Centre, through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, had introduced the provision for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation in admissions and public services. The then attorney general K K Venugopal and the solicitor general Tushar Mehta had defended the amendment, saying the reservation provided under it was different and had been given without disturbing the 50 per cent quota meant for the socially and economically backward classes (SEBC). Hence, the amended provision does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.