In India’s complex reservation landscape, the 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) has stirred both support and controversy. Many wonder why the EWS reservation is not counted along with SC, ST, and OBC quotas, especially when the Supreme Court set a 50% cap on reservations in the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992).
The answer lies in the constitutional origin, purpose, and legal interpretation of the EWS quota.
EWS Reservation: A Separate Legal Entity
In 2019, the Indian Parliament passed the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, inserting Articles 15(6) and 16(6) into the Constitution. These provisions empower the State to provide 10% reservation in education and public employment to economically weaker sections among the general (unreserved) category, excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs.
This marked a paradigm shift: for the first time, the Constitution allowed economic criteria—not social or educational backwardness—as the sole basis for reservation.
Supreme Court’s Green Signal in Janhit Abhiyan Case (2022)
The 103rd Amendment faced legal challenge, but in the landmark case Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), a 5-judge Constitution Bench upheld the validity of EWS reservations by a 3:2 majority.
The majority ruled:
“The 10% EWS quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution… It does not infringe upon the 50% ceiling for caste-based reservations set in Indra Sawhney.”
This judgment clarified that the 50% limit applies only to reservations based on social and educational backwardness—i.e., SC, ST, and OBC quotas—not to economic-based reservations like EWS.
Why EWS is Not Counted Within the 50% Cap
The Indra Sawhney judgment (1992) laid down that reservation should not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary circumstances, to maintain the principle of equality. However, it addressed only caste-based reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4)—not the newly added Articles 15(6) and 16(6) for EWS.
Thus, legally and constitutionally:
- SC/ST/OBC quotas fall under social justice and affirmative action based on backwardness.
- EWS reservation falls under economic upliftment for the general poor.
- The two are governed by distinct constitutional provisions.
Political and Social Reactions
Supporters of EWS reservations argue it promotes economic equity without disturbing social justice. Critics, however, claim it creates a dual-track reservation system, diluting the original intent of affirmative action.
Regardless, the Supreme Court’s judgment offers legal clarity: EWS reservation is separate, and the 50% cap does not include it.
The EWS reservation stands apart from SC, ST, and OBC quotas both legally and constitutionally. Backed by a constitutional amendment and upheld by the apex court, it remains outside the traditional 50% ceiling that governs caste-based quotas. Any attempt to compare or merge it with other categories risks misunderstanding the very framework of India’s reservation policy.
