Skip to main content

Reservations can't be seen as a scheme for poverty alleviation: PUCL tells Apex Court


Counterview Desk 
The People's Union for Civil Liberates (PUCL), India's premier human rights organisation, has said that the Supreme Court, by upholding reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), strikes at the "basic structure of the Constitutional". By asserting that forward castes, as a grouping faces discrimination, much like the category of SC/ST and OBCs,  the Apex Court has resorted to a constitutionally inappropriate response, as it fails to recognize that  reservations cannot be seen as a scheme for poverty alleviation.
Signer by Dr V Suresh, PUCL general secretary, the statement says, the Apex Court through this judgment has "watered down the notion of `social justice’ as a rights-based protection provided to tackle entrenched caste discrimination and hostilities."
PUCL also regret, "By excluding SC/ST and OBCs from the EWS category, the share of SC/ST and OBCs is reduced from 50% of general category seats/posts to 40%. This is an egregious form of discrimination practiced by the state against the most deprived sections, unfortunately legitimized by the court now."

Text

The PUCL is concerned that the decision of the Supreme Court in `Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India’ upholding the constitutionality of reservations for `Economically Weaker Sections’ (EWS) does grave injustice to the vision of the Constitution makers who incorporated Art. 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the Constitution as a legal protection to counter historically entrenched and institutionalised social and cultural discrimination. These Articles, also referred to as the `Equality Code’, were unique as the Constitution framers provided for the fundamental rights of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs, through `reservations’ or `affirmative action’ as a means of achieving `social justice’, a task which remains unfinished, even today, 75 years after independence.
By upholding the Constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, the majority ruling of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala have struck a blow to the `basic structure of the constitution’, disturbing a delicate constitutional balance evolved by the SC over the last many decades by holding that `social justice’ and `social criterion’ are key to fundamental right to equity. In effect, the majority ruling which holds that `economic justice has acquired equal focus alongside the principle of social justice’ has watered down the notion of `social justice’ as a rights-based protection provided to tackle entrenched caste discrimination and hostilities. The majority have also signaled in a way that the EWS could be ‘a first step in the process of doing away with caste-based reservation’.
Pared down to its essence the majority is asserting that `Economically Weaker Sections’ (EWS) are a grouping which faces discrimination, much like the category of SC/ST and OBCs. It is a fact that even among forward castes and other non-reserved communities there are poor people and there must be legislative and policy measures undertaken in accordance with the Directive Principles to alleviate their poverty. However, reservation is a constitutionally inappropriate response and reservations cannot be seen as a scheme for poverty alleviation.
In this, it is disappointing that all five judges, including the minority judgment authored by Justice Ravindra Bhat and CJI UU Lalit, deem reservation on economic basis constitutional. The court in its decision has given the go by to the precedent in `Indira Sawhney’ (1992) in which it was rightly held that economic criterion alone cannot be the basis to determine backwardness. The court has also given up on the rule that the maximum of reservation should be 50% which was laid down in Indira Sawhney case by holding that the EWS quota will not affect this calculation.
What is more damaging to the basic structure of constitutional protections so assiduously put together by Dr. BR Ambedkar and other social reformers, is the exclusion of SC/STs and OBCs from the EWS reservation. The exclusion of SC/ST and OBC from benefiting from the EWS quota is particularly invidious as SC/ST and OBC form a disproportionately high proportion of the EWS in Indian society. The minority opinion of Justices Ravindra Bhat and U.U. Lalit in fact notes that among the ‘entire population of ST’s, 48% are the poorest; among the entire population of Scheduled Castes 38% are the poorest and amongst the OBC’s no less than 33% are the poorest’.
In effect, this exclusion of poor SC/ST and OBC’s from benefiting from the EWS quota, implicitly sets up EWS as a category of reservation meant only for the forward castes. The minority is scathing in its observation that, ‘there is nothing to suggest, how, keeping out those who qualify for the benefit of this economic-criteria reservation, but belong to this large segment constituting 82% of the country’s population (SC, ST and OBC together), will advance the object of economically weaker sections of society.’
The minority judgment in its analysis of non-discrimination gives voice to the anguish felt by Dalit, Adivasi and human rights groups
It is to be noted that by excluding SC/ST and OBCs from the EWS category, the share of SC/ST and OBC’s is reduced from 50% of general category seats/posts to 40%. This is an egregious form of discrimination practiced by the state against the most deprived sections, unfortunately legitimized by the court now.
The 103rd Constitutional amendment’s benefits are limited to non-reserved castes, by implication forward castes, whose income falls within Rs. 8 lakhs limit (the limit being prescribed by government notification), an arbitrary and unrealistically high ceiling, which will further discriminate and exclude more deserving candidates who are actually very poor.
The minority judgment in its analysis of non-discrimination gives voice to the anguish felt and experienced by many Dalit, Adivasi and human rights groups with respect to the reasoning of the majority. The minority strikes down the amendment in-toto on the basis that, “Our Constitution does not speak the language of exclusion” while pointing out that for “for the first time, the constituent power has been invoked to practice exclusion of victims of social injustice, who are also amongst the poorest in this country”.
For the minority, the exclusion of SC/ST and OBC’s from the EWS category is violative of the `Equality Code’ in the Indian Constitution. The `Equality Code’ (Articles 14, 15, 16, and 17), is not “a bland statement of equality before law and equal protection of law”, but also contains “specific injunctions against state from discriminating on proscribed grounds” such as caste. It specifically references Article 17 as “an unequivocal injunction, against untouchability, of any form’ which ‘enjoins the state to forbear caste discrimination, overtly, or through classification, and looms large as a part of the equality code and indeed the entire framework of the Constitution.”
The exclusion violates the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. For the minority, ‘exclusion, with all it’s negative connotation – is not a constitutional principle and finds no place in our constitutional ethos’ and to allow for ‘exclusion of people based on their backwardness,’ is to destroy ‘the constitutional ethos of fraternity, non-discrimination, and non-exclusion.’
This aspect of the minority judgment is rooted in a correct understanding of constitutional principles and therefore to be welcomed. As Justice Khanna put it in his dissent in ADM Jabalpur, “A dissent in a court of last resort…is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed”.

Comments

Anonymous said…
A suggestion ..the maximum reservation a class gets should be 50% of their respective population.
If a class is given reservation equal to its population % ..then they may not be allowed to compete in general category again.
So the Right to Equality of Opportunities is considered

if the historically socially backward constitute 75% of population ..they can be given 37.5% and if general category constitute 25% , they can be given 12.5% as maximum EWS
Anonymous said…
Ideally 100% belongs to all.
Now the historically socially backward can compete in 50% & general ..the economically socially backward can compete in 10% & general.The divergent view was.. the historically socially backward were not allowed to compete in 50%,10% & general category..
Anonymous said…
Both the 50% and 10% are taken from the 100% belonging to all irrespective of caste or religion...and cannot be meant to be perpetual rights of any particular section...all reservations are positive affirmative actions to uplift the marginalized and should be supported...

TRENDING

Wave of disappearances sparks human rights fears for activists in Delhi

By Harsh Thakor*  A philosophy student from Zakir Hussain College, Delhi University, and an activist associated with Nazariya magazine, Rudra, has been reported missing since the morning of July 19, 2025. This disappearance adds to a growing concern among human rights advocates regarding the escalating number of detentions and disappearances of activists in Delhi.

How community leaders overcome obstacles to protect forests and pastures in remote villages

By Bharat Dogra  Dheera Ram Kapaya grew up in such poverty that, unable to attend school himself, he would carry another boy’s heavy school bag for five kilometers just to get a scoop of daliya (porridge). When he was finally able to attend school, he had to leave after class five to join other adolescent workers. However, as soon as opportunities arose, he involved himself in community efforts—promoting forest protection, adult literacy, and other constructive initiatives. His hidden talent for writing emerged during this time, and he became known for the songs and street play scripts he created to promote forest conservation, discourage child marriages, and support other social reforms.

‘Act of war on agriculture’: Aruna Rodrigues slams GM crop expansion and regulatory apathy

By Rosamma Thomas*  Expressing appreciation to the Union Agriculture Minister for inviting suggestions from farmers and concerned citizens on the sharp decline in cotton crop productivity, Aruna Rodrigues—lead petitioner in the Supreme Court case ongoing since 2005 that seeks a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops—wrote to Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on July 14, 2025, stating that conflicts of interest have infiltrated India’s regulatory system like a spreading cancer, including within the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR).

The GMO illusion: Three decades of hype, harm, and false hope

By Sridhar Radhakrishnan  Three decades of hype, billions of dollars spent, and still no miracle crop. It's time to abandon the GMO biotech fairy tale and return to the soil, the seed, and the farmer. “Trust us,” they said. “GMOs will feed the world.” Picture a world where there is plenty of food, no hunger, fields grow without chemical pesticides, children are saved from malnutrition, and people live healthily.

Sandra Gonzalez Sanabria: An inspiring life from Colombia’s Amazonian valley

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat*  In the village of Héctor Ramírez, known as Agua Bonita, in La Montañita, Caquetá, Colombia, a vision of peace and renewal is unfolding. In the pre-2016 period, this would have been nearly impossible for outsiders to visit, as it was the epicenter of violent resistance against state oppression. However, after the Peace Accord was signed between the Colombian government and former revolutionaries—marking the end of a 70-year insurgency that claimed over 400,000 lives until 2025, including civilians, rebel fighters, and security personnel—things began to change. Visiting Agua Bonita during the Global Land Forum in Bogotá revealed a village of hope and resilience. Former FARC revolutionaries have settled here and transformed the village into a center of peace and aspiration.

Overriding India's constitutional sovereignty? Citizens urge PM to reject WHO IHR amendments

By A Representative   A group of concerned Indian citizens, including medical professionals and activists, has sent an urgent appeal to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging him to reject proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) before the ratification deadline of July 19, 2025. 

Indigenous Karen activist calls for global solidarity amid continued struggles in Burma

By A Representative   At the International Festival for People’s Rights and Struggles (IFPRS), Naw Paw Pree, an Indigenous Karen activist from the Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG), shared her experiences of oppression, resilience, and hope. Organized with the support of the International Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL), the event brought together Indigenous and marginalized communities from across the globe, offering a rare safe space for shared learning, solidarity, and expression.

Activists allege abduction and torture by Delhi Police Special Cell in missing person probe

By A Representative   A press statement released today by the Campaign Against State Repression (CASR) alleges that several student and social activists have been abducted, illegally detained, and subjected to torture by the Delhi Police Special Cell. The CASR claims these actions are linked to an investigation into the disappearance of Vallika Varshri, an editorial team member of 'Nazariya' magazine.

India’s zero-emission, eco-friendly energy strategies have a long way to go, despite impressive progress

By N.S. Venkataraman*   The recent report released by OPEC’s World Oil Outlook 2025 has predicted that by the year 2050, crude oil would replace coal as India’s key energy source. Clearly, OPEC expects that India’s dependence on fossil fuels for energy will continue to remain high in one form or another.