JANHIT ABHIYAN versus UNION OF INDIA

JANHIT ABHIYAN versus UNION OF INDIA

By a majority (3:2) the Court held that the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 is constitutionally valid: economic criteria can permissibly be the basis of affirmative action; exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs (SEBCs) from EWS reservation is a form of compensatory discrimination that does not violate the equality code; and a 10% EWS reservation in addition to existing reservations does not breach the 50% ceiling insofar as that ceiling is not inflexible and principally applies to reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4). Consequently the challenge to the 103rd Amendment fails and the Amendment is upheld. Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third...

Parties
Petitioner: JANHIT ABHIYAN; Respondent: UNION OF INDIA
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Judgment
Outcome
Writ petitions and other proceedings disposed of; (note: this judgment contains a dissenting opinion declaring the impugned clauses unconstitutional while the common order records a contrary majority outcome)
Legal Topics
Constitution (one Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, Basic Structure Doctrine, Reservation and Affirmative Action, Article 15, Article 16, Article 368, Article 46, Economically Weaker Sections (ews) Reservation, Private Unaided Educational Institutions, Reasonable Classification, Distributive Justice, Equality Code, Equality, Reservation, Articles 15 and 16, Economically Weaker Sections (ews), Directive Principles, Education and Public Employment, Articles 14 18, Economic Reservation, Affirmative Action, Doctrine of Basic Structure, Basic Structure, Economically Weaker Sections, 103rd Amendment, Time Limits for Reservation, Right to Education, Economic Criteria, Article 15(6), Article 16(1), Article 14, Article 21, 103rd Constitutional Amendment, Economic Criteria for Reservation, Egalitarian Equality, Under Inclusiveness, Over Inclusiveness, Creamy Layer, Untouchability, Article 16(6), Fraternity, Non Discrimination
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Law Equality Reservation Fundamental Rights Basic Structure Doctrine Education Law +42 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 42 Authorities cited 255 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 51
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JANHIT ABHIYAN

Petitioner

UNION OF INDIA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment breaches the basic structure by permitting special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria
  2. 2 Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment breaches the basic structure by permitting special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided institutions
  3. 3 Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment breaches the basic structure in excluding the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation

Ratio Decidendi

By a majority (3:2) the Court held that the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 is constitutionally valid: economic criteria can permissibly be the basis of affirmative action; exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs (SEBCs) from EWS reservation is a form of compensatory discrimination that does not violate the equality code; and a 10% EWS reservation in addition to existing reservations does not breach the 50% ceiling insofar as that ceiling is not inflexible and principally applies to reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4). Consequently the challenge to the 103rd Amendment fails and the Amendment is upheld. Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third...

Court Disposition

Writ petitions and other proceedings disposed of; (note: this judgment contains a dissenting opinion declaring the impugned clauses unconstitutional while the common order records a contrary majority outcome)

Orders

  • The challenge to the 103rd Constitutional Amendment fails and the Amendment is upheld
  • Writ Petition (Civil) No.55 of 2019 and other connected petitions disposed of in accordance with majority judgment