Today’s Significant Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Poor Quota (EWS): 10 Points

The reservation bypasses current affirmative action programmes and was intended for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), a significant BJP voter base.
In New Delhi: The Supreme Court will rule on the legality of the 10% quota in all colleges and government positions for India’s so-called “upper castes,” which was implemented shortly before the 2019 general elections, today.
The following are the top ten lessons to be learned from the Supreme Court’s decision in the EWS quota issue today:
1. The reservation was intended for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), a crucial constituency for the BJP, and it avoids the benefits of current affirmative action, which benefits groups who have historically been marginalised in Indian culture.
2. After the BJP lost the elections in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh in January 2019, the 103rd constitutional amendment was approved but was immediately challenged in the Supreme Court.
3. Even though the majority of the opposition parties, including the Congress, did not oppose the bill, the Supreme Court heard up to 40 petitions against it, including one from Despite having some of the highest rates of reservation in the country, Tamil Nadu maintains a healthy equilibrium.
4. The Supreme Court’s 1992 restriction on national reservations of 50% was raised by the petitioners, who also questioned if the EWS quota altered the “fundamental structure” of the constitution. These were just two of the objections to the EWS quota that petitioners made.
5. The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that the basic framework of the constitution, which includes clauses like the rule of law and the separation of powers, is outside the purview of parliament.
6. The court said after hearing the EWS case that it will base its decision on the answers to three key points, including whether the amendment changed the essential makeup by making it possible to reserve seats while taking into account economic status.
7. The other two concerns were whether it could be enforced on private institutions and if it could be used to exclude historically marginalised groups based on caste, religion, and tribe.
8. The government contended that the modification would assist in removing individuals from poverty and did not go against past Supreme Court rulings or the principles of the constitution.
9. After three judges heard the case at first, they sent it to a larger five-judge panel in 2019. After a drawn-out, six-and-a-half-day hearing in September, the court reserved judgement.
10. The five judges, led by retiring Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, are anticipated to rule on the matter today.

    error: Content is protected !!