Denial of Age and Attempt Relaxation to EWS Candidates is a Policy Decision Beyond Judicial Review: Delhi High Court - 2026-06-04

Deliberations Over Disparity: Delhi High Court Refuses to Mandate Age Relaxation for EWS Candidates

In a significant ruling regarding the parameters of reservation, the High Court of Delhi has dismissed a writ petition seeking parity for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates with those from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories. The court affirmed that the government’s refusal to grant age and attempt relaxations to the EWS category remains a protected policy decision, beyond the purview of judicial interference.

Background to the Dispute

The petitioners, applicants for the Civil Services Examination, challenged the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated January 31, 2019, and the subsequent UPSC notification for the 2024 examination to the extent that they withheld the age and attempt relaxations enjoyed by SC/ST/OBC candidates.

The core of the petitioners' argument was that after the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reservation for the EWS category, it was arbitrary to exclude this group from ancillary benefits like age relaxation. They contended that economic deprivation should be treated with the same weightage as social backwardness, and that failure to provide these relaxations violated the equality guarantees under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

The Government’s Stance

Representing the Union and the UPSC, the respondents argued that the classification for EWS is fundamentally distinct from that of SC/ST/OBC. They pointed out that while the latter categories face structural, intergenerational social discrimination, EWS criteria are based purely on current economic capacity—a fluid status. Furthermore, the UPSC noted that with hundreds of applications received per vacancy, the executive did not find an administrative necessity to dilute the eligibility criteria further.

Judicial Analysis: The Boundaries of Review

The bench, comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan, emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers. The court remarked that while Article 16(6) allows for reservations for the EWS, the determination of the extent and nature of those benefits is an executive function based on technical data and resource assessment.

The judgment clarifies that the judiciary is not an appellate authority for government policy. Unless a policy is found to be manifestly arbitrary or violative of specific constitutional provisions, the court must refrain from substituting its own wisdom for that of the administration.

Key Observations

The court articulated several pivotal legal principles in its reasoning:

• On the nature of EWS status: "EWS is a residual class constituted by exclusion, who are accorded reservations solely on the ground of economic deprivation and not historical social discrimination or caste-based oppression."
• On the role of the judiciary: "Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy."
• On constitutional distinction: "The Constitution itself recognises the distinction between the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes in the matter of reservation. Merely because reservations are kept or concessions are given to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which are not extended to the OBCs, the reservations and the concessions do not become discriminatory."
• On judicial restraint: "The policy decision to provide reservation, of course, is beyond the pale of judicial review."

Implications for Future Recruitment

This judgment reinforces the principle that "equal" does not always mean "identical" in the eyes of the law, especially within the affirmative action framework. For stakeholders and aspirants, the decision clarifies that the state holds broad discretion to structure reservation benefits. As it stands, EWS candidates remain governed by the same age and attempt criteria as general category candidates, as the law does not recognize a mandatory requirement to extend ancillary relaxations to economic-only reservation classes.

The petition, filed as Anish Arun & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. , serves as a definitive judicial statement confirming that, for now, the executive policy on EWS relaxations will remain unchanged.