ThomasEl at 19:20, 17 April 2026

2026-04-17T19:20:02Z

New page

{{Short description|Landmark decision of Supreme Court of India}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
| court = [[Supreme Court of India]]
| image =
| imagesize =
| imagelink =
| imagealt =
| caption =
| full name = Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
| start date = 09 January 2019
| date decided = 07 November 2022
| citations = WP (C) 55/2019
| ECLI =
| transcripts =
| judges = Justice [[Uday Umesh Lalit]] (CJI), [[Dinesh Maheshwari|Justice Dinesh Maheshwari]], Justice [[Bela Trivedi|Bela M Trivedi]], Justice [[J. B. Pardiwala|J B Pardiwala]], and Justice [[Shripathi Ravindra Bhat]]
| number of judges = 5
| keywords = 
}}
'''Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India''', {{Abbr|WP (C)|Writ Petition (Civil)}} 55/2019, also known as the '''EWS Reservation case''', was a [[List of landmark court decisions in India|landmark decision]] of the [[Supreme Court of India]] upholding the validity of the [[One Hundred and Third Amendment of the Constitution of India|One Hundred and Third Amendment]] Act of 2019.

== Background ==

On January 9, 2019, the Parliament introduced amendments to [[Article 15 of the Constitution of India|Articles 15]] and [[Fundamental rights in India|Article 16]] of the Constitution India, incorporating clauses 15(6) and 16(6) to extend reservation in educational institutions and employment opportunities to [[Economically Weaker Section|economically weaker section]]s of society. This amendment, known as the [[One Hundred and Third Amendment of the Constitution of India|One Hundred and Third (103rd) Constitutional Amendment]], has been a subject of controversy since its enactment. It empowered the state to introduce specific provisions for economically disadvantaged sections in education and employment, thus expanding the scope of reservations.

Following the enactment of the [[One Hundred and Third Amendment of the Constitution of India|One Hundred and Third Amendment]] Act of 2019, several writ petitions were filed, seeking to declare the amendment unconstitutional and in violation of the basic structure concept. By adding Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution, the state acquired the authority to impose specific restrictions on reservations for economically weaker sections, with a maximum of 10%. The Superem court compiled all the writ under the case Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India.

== Primary issue in the case ==

# The sole reliance on economic criteria for determining reservations is deemed to be in violation of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2022-11-13 |title=Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India : Tracing the History of 103rd Constitutional Amendment |url=https://primelegal.in/2022/11/13/janhit-abhiyan-v-union-of-india-tracing-the-history-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment/ |access-date=2023-06-19 |website=Prime Legal |language=en-US}}</ref>
# The exclusion of socially and educationally backward groups (SEBCs), including [[Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes|Scheduled Castes]] (SCs), [[Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes|Scheduled Tribes]] (STs), and [[Other Backward Class]]es (OBCs), from the provisions for [[economically weaker sections]] is perceived as discriminatory and contradictory to the core principles of the Constitution.<ref name=":0" />
# Denying reservation benefits to classes mentioned in [[Fundamental rights in India|Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4)]] based on economic considerations is argued to be in violation of the Equality Code and the basic structure theory.<ref name=":0" />

== Decision ==

The [[Supreme Court of India]], in its Judgment delivered on November 7, 2022, upheld the legality of the [[One Hundred and Third Amendment of the Constitution of India|One Hundred and Third Amendment]] Act of 2019 with a majority decision of 3:2<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-11-07 |title='Does not violate basic structure of Constitution': Supreme Court upholds 10% EWS quota in 3-2 verdict |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ews-quota-supreme-court-103rd-constitutional-amendment-8253955/ |access-date=2023-06-19 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

=== Majority Judgement ===
The majority judgement was authored by Justice(s) [[Dinesh Maheshwari]], [[Bela Trivedi|Bela M Trivedi]], and [[J.B. Pardiwala|J B Pardiwala]]. The court observed that the reservation for the [[Economically weaker sections|EWS]] is a valid classification and does not infringe upon the existing reservations for the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs). It was noted that the EWS category is based on economic backwardness and not on caste or social backwardness, which are the criteria for existing reservations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=KM |first=Ashok |date=2022-11-07 |title="Basic Structure Not Violated" : Supreme Court Upholds Application Of EWS Quota To Private Unaided Educational Institutions |url=https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-ews-quota-private-educational-institution-janhit-abhiyan-vs-union-of-india-2022-livelaw-sc-922-213522 |access-date=2023-06-19 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref>

The court further held that the reservation for the [[Economically weaker sections|EWS]] is a legitimate means to achieve the goal of providing equal opportunities and social justice to all sections of society. It recognized that economic inequality and poverty can also be a form of social disadvantage and that the reservation for the [[Economically weaker sections|EWS]] is a step towards addressing this aspect of inequality.<ref>{{Cite web |title=EWS Reservation |url=https://www.scobserver.in/cases/janhit-abhiyan-union-of-india-ews-reservation-case-background/ |access-date=2023-06-19 |website=Supreme Court Observer |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Minority Judgement ===
Justice(s) [[Uday Umesh Lalit]], and [[Shripathi Ravindra Bhat]] authored the dissenting opinion and held that the 103rd amendment to the constitution was violative of the basic structure on two grounds. First, they argued that the exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs from the 10% quota of EWS reservation was against the equality code and discriminated against the historically disadvantaged and deprived communities.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LawBhoomi |date=2022-12-10 |title=Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India, 2022: Case comment |url=https://lawbhoomi.com/janhit-abhiyan-vs-union-of-india-2022-case-comment/ |access-date=2023-06-19 |website=LawBhoomi |language=en-US}}</ref> Second, they argued that reservation under Article 16 could not be based solely on economic criteria, as it would go against the purpose of providing representation to the socially and educationally backward classes.<ref>{{Cite web |last=KM |first=Ashok |date=2022-11-08 |title=[EWS Quota] Why Supreme Court's Minority Judgment Did Not Read Down 103rd Constitutional Amendment ? |url=https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-ews-judgment-minority-read-down-constitution-amendment-janhit-abhiyan-vs-union-of-india-2022-livelaw-sc-922-213535 |access-date=2023-06-19 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

{{Improve categories|date=November 2023}}
{{SCI-cases}}
[[Category:Supreme Court of India cases]]
[[Category:2019 in case law]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of India cases in 2022]]

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India - Revision history

ThomasEl at 19:20, 17 April 2026