A uniform 10% EWS quota across states is quite contentious
The Union Government has been implementing a fixed 10 per cent reservation quota for the economically weaker sections (EWS), exclusively for the general category (GC) population (castes other than SCs/STs/OBCs) in line with the 103rd Constitution Amendment Act in 2019.
When it was challenged, the Supreme Court (Janhit case) upheld it in 2022. Most state governments began implementing a 10 per cent EWS quota, irrespective of the percentage of the GC population, which varies from state to state.
Ironically, reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs vary across states.
Such universality in the EWS quota is QUITE contentious. There are also other contradictions regarding the policy basis of this specific provision.
Initial attempts:
The quota for EWS began after overcoming the hurdles posed against its implementation in 1989. The then prime minister V P Singh proposed a five to 10 per cent EWS quota. However, this did not materialise. Subsequently, the P V Narasimha Rao government took the initiative forward and in 1991 mandated implementation of 10 per cent EWS quota and 27% OBC quota.
The Supreme Court, however, struck down the EBC-quota in the Indira Sawhney case (1992) while upholding the Mandal Commission's recommendation of 27 per cent OBCs quota. The reasons cited was that the EWS quota was made purely on an economic-criterion, which has been contended in the judicial scrutiny of OBCs reservation in various occasions. A further, 10 per cent EWS quota exceeds the 50 per cent ceiling laid down by the apex court (Balaji and other cases).
Commission and Amendment:
The UPA government in 2006 constituted a S R Sinho Commission to study economic backwardness among the general category (GC) population and recommend specific policy provisions. In its 2010 report, the panel suggested an economic criterion for identifying EWS in the GC population- all persons in BPL families and those with annual income below the non-taxable income tax slab.
The NDA Government considered the Sinho Commission report and brought in the 103rd Constitution Amendment Act 2019. When it was challenged in the Janhit case, the Supreme Court in 2022 upheld the 10 per cent EWS quota, following which the Centre laid a less than Rs eight lakh income-criterion for identifying the EWS eligible among GC population. Subsequently, the Union Government's Expert Group retained the criterion. Pending the final verdict, the apex court permitted the criterion.
Contradictions:
Certain contradictions persist in the implementation of 10 per cent EWS quota.
Firstly, its policy basis is itself contradictory; study, methodology and procedures. Kaka Kalelkar chaired the first Commission for Backward Classes (1953-55) and identified BCs on the basis of four indicators-social status, education, government employment and participation in industry, trade and commerce).
The B.P. Mandal chaired the second commission (1979-80) devised a three-dimensional (social, education and economic) 11-indicator criterion for identifying backward classes. The thrust was on social, educational and economic dimensions of backwardness. The Mandal Commission conducted a massive survey across 405 districts, including in urban areas. Concomitantly, many state-level committees and commissions for BCs contemplated a rigorous criterion in identifying backward classes.
In contrast, the Sinho Commission solely relied on economic criteria without such rigorous study and methodology. Its recommendations are based on its visits to states and Union Territories and interacting with officials and functionaries implementing the welfare policies, experts and civil society organisations.
When they were contested, the judicial proceedings did not validate the methodology and procedures conducted for the commissions and committees. In all previous verdicts, the economic-criterion has been contended the most in identifying BCs. However, there is a marked difference vis-à-vis the Sinho panel report.
Secondly, the EWS quota exceeding the 50 per cent ceiling is allowed while strictly restricting the SC/ST/OBCs reservation to 50 per cent. The SC/ST quotas are fixed in proportion to the population share in states. Hence, a space for the OBCs reservation quota, at the Centre and in states, is the balance. The OBCs quota is adjusted for the creamy-layer among the OBCs. The OBCs' creamy-layer criteria differ across the Centre and states.
In contrast, EWS quota at the Centre and in states is not bound by the above limitations. Of course, exclusion of GC creamy layer benefiting from EWS quota is applicable on the Rs eight lakh income criterion, the basis of which is again contentious (verdict pending). The 10 per cent EWS quota across states shall also follow the same creamy layer criterion. It is not subject to varying income levels across states and differences between the Centre and states.
Thirdly, the uniform 10 per cent EWS quota is contentious as the population of SCs, STs and OBCs varies across states. Neither is the EWS quota adjusted to the GC share in a state, nor the EWS creamy-layer income to the state income. When the Centre's 27 per cent OBCs quota is not mandatory across states, then why should the 10 per cent EWS quota be?
For instance it makes sense if Uttarakhand implements the 10 per cent EWS quota as more than a quarter of its population come under the GC category, which is not the same case as regards other states, in proportionate terms.
BCs are the losers:
The OBCs are the losers. Each social category is entitled to equal opportunity. Following democracy's basic principle of proportionate representation, quota should be earmarked in accordance with the population share in the states.
The Constitution has ensured that reservations are near to the population share of SCs and STs. However, most Indian states have OBCs that are in excess of 50 per cent of their state population. The OBC quota is around 32 per cent. In many states, around 10 to 15 per cent of the population are in the GC bracket.
Quota is earmarked for all the four mutually exclusive social categories-SC/ST/OBC/GC. However, the difference between reservation quota and population share of each indicates it is the highest for OBCs and hence their relative deprivation is higher.
As a result, EWSs in GCs are safeguarded more than OBCs, who are historically deprived.
(The writer is Associate Professor and Coordinator (Research Cell on Education), CESS, Hyderabad
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's "largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups."Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans."Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing "background circumstances" that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such Jackson wrote that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Prabhakar Rao likely to return to India on June 9
Hyderabad: Former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief Prabhakar Rao, prime accused in the phone tapping case, is expected to come to India on June 9 from the US. It is learnt that Rao approached the Indian embassy in the US and is all set to get his passport. The Supreme Court had recently directed authorities to restore his passport to allow him to travel to India. The SC also protected him from arrest, but directed him to return to India within three days of obtaining his travel documents. The passport had been revoked following a request to Centre from Hyderabad police as he had been avoiding questioning by cops by staying in the US citing ill health. Soon after Hyderabad police registered a case of phone tapping in 2024, Rao had fled to the US.
