The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to grant a 10% quota to persons from Economically Weaker Sections in admissions and jobs, reported Live Law.

The petitioners are against the 103rd amendment to the Constitution, which introduced changes to Articles 15 and 16 that deal with the right to equality and provide the basis for reservations.

During the hearing on Tuesday, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, representing a group of petitioners, argued that the 50% limit on the extent of reservation was sacrosanct, and that breaching it would violate the basic structure of the Constitution, according to Live Law.

Senior advocate P Wilson, appearing for another group of petitioners, said that data cited by the government in support of the amendment was not empirical. He argued that the government could not rely on data from the National Sample Survey Organisation to establish a need for reservation.

The Centre had earlier told the Supreme Court that the quota for the Economically Weaker Sections does not erode the rights of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities as they already enjoy a lot of benefits.

Members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities have been given several benefits under the Constitution, including Article 16(4)(a) (special provision for promotion), Article 243D (reservation in panchayat and municipality seats), Article 330 (reservation in the Lok Sabha) and Article 332 (reservation in state legislative assemblies), the government added.

“So far as the SCs and STs are concerned, they have been loaded with benefits by way of affirmative actions,” Attorney General KK Venugopal, representing the Centre, had said. “They are highly unequal and in tremendous position so far as reservations are concerned.”

EWS quota

The Union government introduced the economically weaker sections quota for those who cannot avail reservations granted to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, but have an annual family income of less than Rs 8 lakh.

However, if the family owns more than 5 acres of agricultural land or 1,000 square feet of residential land, the person will not be eligible for the reservation.

Last year, the Supreme Court had made a prima facie observation that these criteria seemed arbitrary. Since the income criteria of Rs 8 lakh per annum were used to exclude the “creamy layer” from the Other Backward Classes quota, the court questioned if the Centre had mechanically included the distinction for Economically Weaker Sections as well.

A Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice UU Lalit, said it wants to examine whether the 10% quota for upper caste economically weak aspirants in government jobs and college admissions, violated the basic structure of the Constitution.