A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The present writ proceedings arise from a constitutional challenge to the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which introduced Articles 15(6) and 16(6) into the Constitution of India. The amendment empowered the State to provide up to ten per cent reservation in educational institutions and public employment for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of citizens, excluding classes already covered under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4). The petitioners contended that the amendment violates the basic structure doctrine, particularly the equality code under Articles 14, 15, and 16. It was argued that economic criteria alone cannot constitute the basis for reservation and that the amendment breaches the 50% ceiling limit laid down in Indra Sawhney. Further objections were raised against extending reservations to unaided private educational institutions, alleging violation of Article 19(1)(g).

The Union of India defended the amendment by asserting that it is an enabling provision intended to address structural economic disadvantage among sections excluded from existing reservation frameworks. The Union relied on Article 46, the Preamble, and prior judicial recognition of economic criteria in affirmative action. The Supreme Court, without adjudicating on merits, held that the challenge raised substantial questions of constitutional interpretation, particularly concerning the width and identity of equality provisions. Accordingly, exercising powers under Article 145(3) and Order XXXVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench of five Judges.

Keywords: Economic Reservation, Basic Structure Doctrine, Equality Code, Article 145(3), Constitution Bench, EWS Quota

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The constitutional amendment under challenge represents a significant departure from the traditional reservation framework grounded in social and educational backwardness. By introducing economic criteria as an independent basis for affirmative action, the amendment reconfigured the constitutional understanding of equality. The petitioners approached the Court under Article 32, asserting that such reconfiguration impermissibly alters the basic structure of the Constitution.

The background of the amendment is closely linked to governmental attempts to address economic deprivation among citizens not covered under existing reservation categories. Reference was made to the Sinho Commission Report (2010), which identified large segments of economically disadvantaged persons within the general category. The Union relied on this data to justify the need for constitutional intervention.

Judicial history played a crucial role in framing the dispute. The petitioners relied heavily on the nine-Judge Bench ruling in Indra Sawhney, which held that economic criteria alone cannot determine backwardness and that reservations ordinarily should not exceed 50%. Conversely, the Union distinguished this precedent on the ground that it dealt with executive action and not a constitutional amendment.

The matter also raised concerns regarding the autonomy of unaided private educational institutions, particularly in light of Article 19(1)(g). The competing constitutional values of equality, affirmative action, and institutional freedom formed the backdrop of the adjudicatory challenge.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 amended Articles 15 and 16 by inserting clauses (6), enabling the State to provide up to ten per cent reservation for Economically Weaker Sections. The amendment expressly excluded beneficiaries of existing reservation schemes under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4).

Following the amendment, multiple writ petitions were filed before the Supreme Court and various High Courts challenging its constitutional validity. The principal writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 55 of 2019, was instituted by Janhit Abhiyan. Petitioners contended that the amendment violates the equality principle by permitting reservation solely on economic grounds and by breaching the 50% ceiling.

The Union of India filed a detailed counter affidavit asserting that the amendment was necessitated by empirical data showing exclusion of economically weaker citizens from existing welfare mechanisms. The Union also relied upon Article 46, which mandates the State to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections.

During hearings, extensive arguments were advanced on whether the matter involved substantial questions of constitutional interpretation. Senior counsel for the petitioners invoked Article 145(3) and Order XXXVIII to seek reference to a Constitution Bench. The Attorney General opposed the reference, arguing that existing precedents sufficiently addressed the issues raised.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 violates the basic structure of the Constitution?
ii. Whether economic criteria alone can form the basis of reservation under the equality code?
iii. Whether the amendment breaches the 50% ceiling limit on reservations?
iv. Whether extending reservation to unaided private institutions violates Article 19(1)(g)?
v. Whether the challenge raises a substantial question of law requiring reference under Article 145(3)?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the petitioners submitted that economic backwardness is not synonymous with social and educational backwardness. Reliance was placed on Indra Sawhney, where it was held that economic criteria cannot be the sole determinant for reservation.

It was argued that the amendment distorts the identity and width of the equality provisions, thereby violating the basic structure doctrine as articulated in Kesavananda Bharati. The petitioners contended that the 50% ceiling, reaffirmed in M.R. Balaji and Indra Sawhney, forms part of constitutional equality.

Objections were also raised against imposing reservation obligations on unaided private institutions, contending that such compulsion infringes the freedom to practice any occupation under Article 19(1)(g).

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Union of India submitted that the amendment is an enabling provision and does not mandate reservation. It was argued that the basic structure doctrine is violated only when the identity of the Constitution is destroyed, which is not the case here.

The Union contended that economic disadvantage is a legitimate ground for affirmative action and relied on Ashoka Kumar Thakur and Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan to support classification based on economic criteria.

It was further argued that the 50% rule is not an inflexible constitutional limitation and that extraordinary circumstances may justify deviation.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Court confined itself to the issue of reference and refrained from adjudicating the merits of the amendment. It held that the challenge raised substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, particularly the scope of equality provisions.

The Bench observed that for the first time, economic criteria had been constitutionally recognised as a basis for reservation. This, according to the Court, necessitated authoritative examination by a larger Bench.

Relying on Article 145(3) and Order XXXVIII Rule 1(1), the Court held that matters involving interpretation of constitutional amendments affecting fundamental rights must be heard by at least five Judges. Accordingly, the entire batch of writ petitions was referred to a Constitution Bench.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the decision lies in the determination that a constitutional challenge alleging violation of the basic structure and reinterpretation of the equality code constitutes a substantial question of law. Such questions mandatorily require adjudication by a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3).

The Court emphasised that where the identity or width of fundamental rights is alleged to be altered, judicial discipline requires reference to a larger Bench. The introduction of economic reservation through constitutional amendment was held to raise issues of constitutional magnitude.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court made significant observations on the evolving nature of affirmative action. It noted that while Indra Sawhney remains authoritative, its applicability to constitutional amendments requires careful reconsideration.

The Court also observed that the rigidity of the 50% ceiling may require contextual evaluation, particularly where the Constitution itself is amended to address systemic exclusion.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Constitutional challenges involving basic structure must be examined by a Constitution Bench.
ii. Allegations affecting the equality code require application of the identity and width tests.
iii. Matters involving first-time constitutional recognition of new affirmative action criteria warrant authoritative scrutiny.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The order reflects judicial restraint and institutional prudence. By declining to decide the merits, the Court preserved constitutional stability while ensuring that transformative amendments receive adequate deliberation. The reference underscores the gravity of introducing economic criteria into the reservation framework and its potential implications on the equality doctrine.

The decision reinforces the procedural importance of Article 145(3) and clarifies that constitutional amendments impacting fundamental rights cannot be examined lightly. The case stands as a procedural milestone in constitutional adjudication, setting the stage for a comprehensive examination of economic reservation by a Constitution Bench.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454

• M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, [1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 439

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, [1973] Suppl. SCR 1

• Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, [2008] 4 SCR 1

• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336

b) Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India

• Supreme Court Rules, 2013