Back
UDAY UMESH LALIT, DINESH MAHESHWARI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. B. PARDIWALA
Janhit Abhiyan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Question 1? How to determine whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure by permitting reservation based on economic criteria? Question 2? How to address the exclusion of SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from EWS reservation and its impact on equality and basic structure? Question 3? What is the validity and limits of the 50% ceiling in light of the 103rd Amendment and related precedents?
Key Points: - The Court held that the 103rd Amendment cannot be said to breach the basic structure by permitting economic-criteria based reservation. (!) - Excluding SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from EWS reservation raises questions about equality code and is scrutinized under basic structure; majority upheld exclusion as constitutional, while one judge dissented (concurring views referenced). (!) (!) (!) - The judgement discusses the fifty percent ceiling on reservations (Indra Sawhney) and its potential to be exceeded in extraordinary situations; however, the majority did not overrule this, while one judge warns about breaching the cap. (!) (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes that reservation is an enabling, not an absolute right, and that Parliament may expand affirmative action within constitutional limits. (!) (!) - The Court acknowledges the Preamble and DPSPs as guiding principles supporting economic justice and distributive justice, including Article 46 and Articles 38, 39. (!) (!) (!) - The majority concludes that EWS reservation up to ten percent, in addition to existing reservations, does not violate the basic structure; the minority rejects this on grounds of exclusion. (!) (!) - The majority sustains reservations as a legitimate tool for inclusive growth; the dissenting opinion criticizes exclusion as undermining egalitarian goals. (!) (!) - The decision references Indra Sawhney and Nagaraj framework for "backwardness," representation, and proportional equality in evaluating reservations. (!) (!) (!) - The Court notes that Article 15(6) and 16(6) were struck down in the dissenting view for creating exclusionary criteria. (!) - The judgment underlines that the Constitution is a living document, with flexible interpretation to meet changing conditions. (!) (!)
ORDER :
These matters have been disposed of today by pronouncement of four separate judgments rendered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, for himself and on behalf of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi; and, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
In view of the decision rendered by the majority consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the challenge raised to 103rd Amendment to the Constitution fails and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat remains in minority.
Consequently, the Writ Petitions and other proceedings stand disposed of.
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
| Contents | |||
| Preliminary and Brief Outline | |||
| The Referral and the Questions Formulated | |||
| Rival Submissions | |||
| In challenge to the amendment in question In part challenge to the amendment in question In support of the amendment in question | |||
| Points for Determination | |||
| Relevant Constitutional Provisions | |||
| | |||
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
