Economically Weaker Sections

In one line

In 2019 India added a reservation based on poverty alone, available only to those who are not already covered by any other reservation, and the Supreme Court upheld it by three to two.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the One Hundred and Third Amendment inserted article 15(6) and article 16(6), enabling special provision, including reservation of up to ten per cent, for the economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes covered by articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4), the sections being such as may be notified by the State on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.

The text

Article 15(6) enables special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections other than the classes in clauses (4) and (5), and, in relation to admission to educational institutions including private institutions whether aided or unaided, other than minority institutions under article 30(1), reservation which shall be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent of the total seats in each category.

The Explanation provides that for the purposes of article 15 and article 16, economically weaker sections shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.

Article 16(6) enables reservation of appointments or posts for economically weaker sections other than the classes in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent.

In force from 14 January 2019.

Three features. The definition is delegated to the executive by notification. The benefit is expressly in addition to existing reservations. And the class is defined negatively as well as positively: to qualify, a person must be economically weak and outside the classes already covered.

The three questions

The amendment raised three constitutional questions, and Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2023) 5 SCC 1, answered all three.

First: may reservation rest on economic criteria alone? Indra Sawhney had said a backward class cannot be identified only and exclusively by economic criteria, and the second Mandal memorandum's ten per cent for other economically backward sections had been struck down on that basis. The answer given by the majority is that reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature or damage the basic structure. The reconciliation is that Indra Sawhney was construing article 16(4), which requires a backward class, whereas article 16(6) is a new and separate power whose criterion is economic by design.

Second: may the already-reserved classes be excluded? The exclusion is the strange feature: a person who is poor and a member of a Scheduled Caste is ineligible for the economically weaker sections quota. The majority held that excluding the classes covered by articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) balances non-discrimination against compensatory discrimination and does not damage the basic structure. The dissent treated the exclusion as the vice: an economic criterion that excludes the poorest, who are disproportionately in the excluded groups, discriminates on the very ground it claims to disregard.