Friday, 17 May, 2024
By: Devparna Acharya
While Supreme Court upheld 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections under the 103rd Constitutional amendment, there are several loose ends that need to be tied. Image source: IANS
While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala ruled in favour of the quota, Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat dissented, leading to 3-2 verdict in the matter
Hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 103rd amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court said that reservation on economic basis does not violate the essential features of the Constitution of India. The amendment had introduced a 10 percent reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in admissions to educational institutions and government jobs. While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala ruled in favour of the quota, Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat dissented, leading to 3-2 verdict in the matter.
While Justice Trivedi noted that the EWS quota “does not affect the rights of reserved classes by exempting them from its purview. The reservation was brought in to address inequalities created by the caste system. After 75 years, we need to revisit policy to live up to the philosophy of transformative constitutionalism”, Justice Bhat’s dissenting note said: “Amendment practices constitutionally prohibited discriminations and strikes at the heart of the quality code. Allowing breach of the 50 per cent cap set on reservation can lead to further infractions which can result in compartmentalisation.”
How does Supreme Court’s 7 November 2022 verdict juxtapose with the EWS criteria as defined by the government especially when compared to the global benchmark of being Below the Poverty Line (BPL)?
Earlier in 2022, after the Supreme Court said that the income criterion to determine the EWS category was “arbitrary”, the Centre formed a panel to “revisit the criteria for determining the economically weaker sections” in terms of the provisions of the explanation to Article 15 of the Constitution. SC’s contention arose from the fact that income limit to determine creamy layer of OBC and the EWS is the same – Rs 8 lakh per annum. “While the creamy layer in the OBC category is identified for excluding a section of the community that has ‘economically progressed’ to such an extent that the social backwardness of the community diminishes, the EWS category is identified to include the segment which is ‘poorer’ when compared to the rest of the community… In these circumstances, would it be arbitrary to provide the same income limit.”
To be EWS eligible, the following criterion are must:
1) You should be a ‘general’ candidate (not covered under reservation for SC, ST or OBC).
2) Your family’s gross annual income should be below Rs. 8 lakhs. This includes income from all sources such as agriculture, salary, business, etc. for the financial year before you apply for the exam.
3) Your family should not own agricultural land of size 5 acres or more.
4) Your family should not own a residential flat of area 1000 square feet or more.
5) Your family should not own a residential plot (in notified municipalities) of an area 100 square yards or more.
6) Your family should not own a residential plot (other than in notified municipalities) of area 200 square yards or more.
We will focus only on two criterions for this article: 2 and 3.
If available consumer expenditure surveys such as the 2011-12 NSSO report, Key Indicators of Household Consumer Expenditure, are any indication, the limit of Rs 8 lakh will be rendered irrational as a bulk of the population will be eligible for reservations under the “below ₹8 lakh” cut-off under the EWS category. The government committee’s assertion that ₹ 8 lakh corresponds to the “effective income tax exemption limit” even as the only income slab exempt from paying taxes was for those earning below ₹2.5 lakh, also renders the criteria on “being economically weak” as less stringent. The Supreme Court should have ideally sought more clarification on the criteria adopted by the government panel to set the income limit to identifying those eligible under the EWS category. It is important to note here that the World Bank considers anyone earning less than $1.90 (Rs 156.35) a day as poor. The government panel’s report also says that to be classified under EWS, your family should not own or possess agricultural land of size 5 acres or above. Over 86% of Indian farmers own less than one hectare of land. The number of landless agricultural workers has steadily increased in India. There were 106.7 million landless agricultural labourers according to the 2001 Census. This number increased to 144.3 million in 2011.
According to the ‘Key Indicators of Household Consumer Expenditure in India, 2011-12’, average urban Monthly Per Capita Consumer Expenditure (MPCE) was at ₹2,630, which is about 84% higher than average rural MPCE (₹1,430) for the country as a whole. The 2017-18 survey was junked by the government due to a media leak which posited that data revealed that there was a considerable fall in the MPCE making it a first such drop since 1972-73. With actual data missing on new consumption and expenditure patterns, and considering that the next survey would end up coming after 9-10 years (instead of a usual 6 year gap) this deprives policy makers of invaluable data – data which is directly linked to determining those eligible under the EWS category, as defined by the government panel.
While Supreme Court upheld 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections under the 103rd Constitutional amendment, there are several loose ends that need to be tied. While the verdict is being hailed as victory for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s big push for ‘Gareeb Kalyan’, without defining the ‘gareeb’ and without implementing the age and attempt relaxation, the 10% reservation will again be used as a political tool rather than for the larger interest of the society.
