Introduction
In January 2019, the Government of India introduced a path-breaking but controversial move — a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. This was done through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, which allowed reservations based on economic criteria alone, excluding backwardness or caste.
The EWS quota sparked both support and criticism, leading to a long legal battle that ended with a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upholding the amendment in November 2022. But does the EWS quota uphold social justice, or does it dilute India's historic affirmative action framework? Let’s explore.
Background of EWS Quota
Why Was EWS Introduced?
-
For decades, reservations in India were limited to:
-
Scheduled Castes (SC) – 15%
-
Scheduled Tribes (ST) – 7.5%
-
Other Backward Classes (OBC) – 27%
-
-
These were based on social and educational backwardness.
-
The government argued that economically poor people from forward/general castes also needed support — hence the need for a separate quota.
103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019
-
Added Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Constitution.
-
Provides 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions to EWS of the general category.
-
Excludes SC/ST/OBC communities, who already benefit from other quotas.
Eligibility Criteria for EWS
-
Annual family income below ₹8 lakh.
-
Ownership of less than:
-
5 acres of agricultural land,
-
1000 sq. ft. house,
-
100 sq. yard house plot in urban areas or 200 sq. yards in rural areas.
-
-
Applicable only to non-reserved category individuals (i.e., not SC, ST, or OBC).
Supreme Court Review and Judgment (2022)
Challenge in Court
-
Many argued that the EWS quota violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
-
Key objections:
-
It excludes SC/ST/OBC — thus discriminatory.
-
Economic criteria alone do not represent systemic disadvantages.
-
Violates 50% cap on reservations set by previous judgments (Indra Sawhney case).
-
Judgment Highlights
-
By 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the EWS quota as constitutional.
-
Majority View (Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi, and J.B. Pardiwala):
-
Affirmative action can evolve.
-
Economic deprivation is valid ground for reservation.
-
Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS is not discriminatory, as they already receive other benefits.
-
-
Dissenting Judges (Justices Ravindra Bhat and then-CJI U.U. Lalit):
-
Said exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS is unconstitutional.
-
Economic criteria alone do not address structural oppression.
-
Debates Around EWS Reservation
Pros
-
Targets genuine economic hardship in general category.
-
Helps poor upper castes who do not benefit from traditional quotas.
-
Reflects a modern, evolving view of disadvantage.
Cons
-
Excludes the most marginalized — SC/ST/OBC poor — from the EWS category.
-
Could dilute caste-based affirmative action, which addresses centuries of discrimination.
-
Violates 50% ceiling — although SC says it’s not absolute.
-
Fear of upper caste appeasement under the guise of welfare.
Impact of the EWS Quota
In Education
-
Central institutions like IITs, IIMs, and central universities now reserve 10% for EWS.
-
Special infrastructure expansion (under EWS expansion plan) undertaken to implement the quota without affecting general category seats.
In Jobs
-
Applicable to central government jobs, and many states have adopted it too.
Long-Term Implications
-
Could redefine the future structure of Indian reservation policy.
-
May set precedent for economic-based quotas globally.
-
Raises the question: Is economic disadvantage equal to historical social discrimination?
Conclusion
The EWS reservation marks a significant shift in India's approach to social justice. While it's an attempt to balance poverty and merit, its constitutional and ethical legitimacy remains debated. The Supreme Court’s 2022 verdict has cleared legal doubts — for now. But socially, the debate is far from over.
In a country as diverse and layered as India, affirmative action must be nuanced and inclusive, not exclusionary or politically expedient. Future policy must ensure that upliftment doesn’t become a zero-sum game — helping one group should not mean hurting another.