New Delhi: The 103rd Amendment to the Constitution, which establishes a 10% reserve for members of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in admissions and government posts, was maintained by a majority of a five-judge Supreme Court bench. The Act was affirmed by three justices (Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala), while two judges were opposed. In a dissenting opinion, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat criticised the statute for being unfair and violating fundamental principles. Justice S Ravindra Bhat’s opinion was shared by Chief Justice U U Lalit as well.
According to Justice Trivedi, the EWS quota law does not discriminate. According to Justice Maheshwari, the EWS quota law’s consideration of economic factors does not contradict the equality code or basic principles of structure. Since the quota ceiling is flexible, exceeding it by more than 50% doesn’t harm any critical features either. In January 2019, the 103rd constitutional amendment was approved by the legislature but was immediately contested in the Supreme Court.
Even though the majority of the opposition parties, including the Congress, did not oppose the bill, the Supreme Court heard up to 40 petitions against it, including one from the state of Tamil Nadu, which has some of the highest levels of reservation in the nation, well balanced.