Court case(2023) 5 SCC 1

The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act 2019 inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6), enabling the State to reserve up to 10 per cent of seats in educational institutions (including private unaided ones, other than minority institutions) and of posts in public employment for 'economically weaker sections' of citizens other than those covered by the existing reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs. Petitioners contended that reservation purely on economic grounds, the exclusion of the backward classes from it, and the breach of the 50 per cent ceiling destroyed the basic structure.

By three to two the amendment was upheld. Maheshwari, Trivedi and Pardiwala JJ held that reservation is an instrument of affirmative action for the inclusion of any disadvantaged section, so economic criteria alone are a valid basis and do not damage the basic structure; that excluding classes already enjoying reservation from the EWS quota is a reasonable classification, not discrimination; and that the 50 per cent ceiling of Indra Sawhney applies to reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4), is not inflexible, and does not bind a constitutional amendment. Bhat J, with Lalit CJ, dissented: while economic reservation itself was permissible, excluding the poorest among SCs, STs and OBCs from the EWS benefit was an exclusion that struck at the equality code and the basic structure, and breaching the ceiling opened the door to compartmentalisation.