The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions seeking a review of a November 2022 majority judgment by a Constitution Bench, which upheld the validity of 10% quota for the ‘economically weaker sections’ (EWS) of society.
“Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record… The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed,” a five-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, rejected the review pleas in a recent order published on Tuesday.
The plea for an open court hearing of the review petitions was rejected. The review pleas were decided via circulation among the judges.
A majority of three judges on the Constitution Bench in November last year had held that the 10% EWS quota to the “poorest of poor” among forward castes did not pose any danger to the basic structure of the Constitution.
The three judges had concluded that the exclusion of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the Socially and Economically Backward Classes, and the Other Backward Classes from the scope of the EWS reservation did not violate the equality code.
Two of the three judges in the majority had wanted the reservation policy to be put on a timeline.
The EWS quota makes persons with less than ₹8 lakh gross annual family income eligible. The quota excludes BCs, SCs, STs and OBCs who form ‘homogenous groups’ included in the prevalent 50% reservation granted separately.
Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), represented by senior advocate P. Wilson, had sought a review of the majority judgment. The DMK had argued that the quota gave a large section of upper caste population “easy exclusive luxurious” reservations.
The review pleas had argued that the judgment had re-written the settled law laid down by a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court which froze reservation at 50%, leaving the remaining half to meritorious candidates.
The DMK petition said the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced the 10% EWS quota into the Constitution “has given them [advanced classes] a mask to hide behind the misleading term of ‘economically weaker sections’”. The party had argued that the judgment had approved discrimination by permitting the exclusion of the poor from ST, SC and OBC categories from the 10% reservation.
