The Supreme Court’s majority decision affirming the 10% economically weaker sections (EWS) quota for forward castes, aimed at assisting the “poorest of the poor,” presents an intriguing possibility. It could potentially serve as a catalyst for backward classes to seek reservation exceeding the established 50% ceiling limit. This potential shift is based on data emerging after the Bihar caste-based survey.
The EWS judgment explicitly excluded the “poorest of the poor” among Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes from the ambit of the 10% quota.
The 3:2 majority decision maintained that the EWS quota did not violate the 50% ceiling set by the Indira Sawhney judgment on reservations. It argued that the State could make “special provisions from time to time in the march towards an all-inclusive egalitarian society.”
In the lead opinion for the majority, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari (now retired) emphasized that while the 50% ceiling is constitutionally recognized, it is not rigid and unchangeable. He pointed out that further reservation by affirmative action by the State should not be seen as undermining the Constitution’s Basic Structure. Justice Maheshwari acknowledged that adhering strictly to a 50% reservation rule is challenging in practice.
He cited the M. Nagaraj judgment, highlighting that in the pursuit of proportional equality, the State is expected to take affirmative steps to support disadvantaged sections within the framework of a liberal democracy.
The recent Bihar survey data reveals that the Other Backward Classes and the Extremely Backward Classes collectively constitute 63% of the State’s population.
The EWS judgment referenced the 1992 Indira Sawhney verdict, which acknowledged that while 50% should be the general rule, exceptions might be necessary in unique cases, particularly in remote areas with distinct circumstances.
The November 2022 EWS ruling drew on several top court decisions to argue that the 50% limit could be exceeded when warranted. In the N.M. Thomas case, the Supreme Court stressed that the 50% limit was merely a “rule of caution” and not exhaustive.
It emphasized that reservation cannot be reduced to a fixed mathematical formula, and the suitability of reservation within permissible limits depends on specific facts and circumstances.
In essence, the EWS verdict suggested that courts should assess whether reservation becomes oppressive and leads to unfair exclusion rather than rigidly adhering to a percentage limit.
In the Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) case, the court characterized the 50% limit as a “convenient guideline” set by judges. It stressed that each case should be decided based on practical results rather than arbitrary limits.
Justice Maheshwari quoted Justice Chinnappa Reddy, emphasizing that courts should avoid arbitrary constraints on reservation percentages.
This evolving legal landscape suggests that the debate over reservation and the 50% ceiling limit remains dynamic and subject to interpretation based on the prevailing social and demographic context.
This analysis underscores the need for nuanced and context-specific discussions on reservation policies in India, taking into account evolving societal realities and constitutional principles.