EWS Reservation: What happened on the EWS reservation in Supreme Court? Understand the decision of all the judges in five points

The Supreme Court has put its stamp on the reservation being given to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). This reservation will be applicable in the future also. A five-judge bench ruled in favor of the EWS reservation by 3-2. Three judges upheld the 103rd amendment to the Constitution for reservation. At the same time, Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat gave their opinion against this reservation. Know the full verdict, which judges said what, and what does it mean?

Which judges ruled in favor and who in opposition?

Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Bela Trivedi ruled in favor of the EWS reservation. These judges considered that this reservation is not against the Constitution, but an opportunity to provide equal opportunities to all. He said that the amendment which has been made regarding reservation is under the intention of the Constitution. At the same time, Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat gave their opinion against it.

What did Justice Dinesh Maheshwari say?

Justice Dinesh Maheshwari said in favor of the EWS reservation, 'We have taken care of equality. Can economic quota be the only basis for giving economic reservations? The quota on economic grounds is not against the basic spirit of the Constitution. This in no way harms the very essence of reservation.' Justice Maheshwari upheld the 103rd amendment to the Constitution.

What did Justice Bela Trivedi say?

Justice Bela Trivedi also upheld Justice Maheshwari's remarks. He said that I agree with the conclusion of Justice Maheshwari. He said that SC/ST/OBC have already got a reservation. It cannot be included in the general category. The framers of the constitution had talked about keeping the reservation for a limited time, but it continues even after 75 years.

What did Justice Pardiwala say?

Justice JB Pardiwala agreed with the points raised by Justice Maheshwari and Justice Bela and said, "Reservation is not an end, it is a means, and it should not be allowed to become vested interests." He further said, 'Reservation should not be extended indefinitely. This is a way to benefit people on a large scale. That's why I am in favor of the amendment made for the EWS reservation.

Justice Ravindra Bhat expressed dissent

Giving the reservation decision on economic grounds, Justice Ravindra Bhat disagreed. He said, 'A major part of the population belongs to SC/ST/OBC. Many of them are poor. Therefore, the 103rd Amendment is wrong. It will not be right to give reservations above 50 percent. Articles 15(6) and 16(6) should be repealed.

Chief Justice also agreed with Justice Bhat's decision

Chief Justice UU Lalit also opposed reservation on economic grounds. He said that I agree with the decision of Justice Ravindra Bhat. He said, crossing the 50 percent reservation limit is against the basic structure. This is against the basic spirit of the Constitution.

What is the whole matter, understand

The Central Government had made the 103rd amendment in the Constitution to give 10 percent reservation to the economically weaker upper castes. Its validity was challenged in the Supreme Court. The five-judge bench had reserved the verdict on September 27. The five-judge constitution bench comprises Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala. The marathon hearing in the case lasted for about seven days. In this, the petitioners and (then) Attorney General KK Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made their arguments regarding the EWS quota.

What did the petitioners argue?

The petitioners had argued that the purpose of reservation was the upliftment of the socially discriminated class, if poverty is the basis, then SC-ST-OBC should also get a place in it. The EWS quota is a violation of the 50 percent reservation limit.

What side did the government take?

The government also put forth its stand in the Supreme Court on the claims of the petitioner. It was said by the government that this system is necessary to get equality status to the EWS section. On behalf of the central government, it was said that there is no harm to any other class getting a reservation from this system. The 50% limit that is being said is not a constitutional arrangement, it has come from a decision of the Supreme Court. In such a situation, it would be wrong to say that reservation cannot be given beyond this.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on petitions challenging EWS quota in jobs today