The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty Fourth Amendment) Bill, 2019, was passed almost unanimously in Parliament and received the President’s assent on January 12, 2019.The 124th Constitutional Amendment sought to provide 10% reservation in education as well as central and state government jobs to the economically weaker sections among the general categories, over and above the existing 50 per cent reservation to SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The amendment provides for the advancement of the “economically weaker sections” of the society.Though the Constitution envisages quota for socially and educationally backward classes besides SC and STs, it has no mention of economically weaker section, however, Article 46,asks the government to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the society.Moreover, the bill provides reservation for:
People who have an annual income of less than Rs 8 lakh, or
People who own less than five acres of farm land, or
People who have a house less than 1,000 sq feet in a town (or 100 sq yard in a notified municipal area).

The main features of the bill are as follows:
Amendment carves up additional quota for poor not under SC/ST, OBC categories
10% seats reserved for poor in higher education institutions, including private aided or unaided institutions
10% state jobs reserved for poor. Reservation only in initial appointment
10% reservation for ‘economically weaker sections’ will be in addition to the existing reservation

Articles 15 & 16 amended
New clause 6 inserted in Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth)
New clause 6 inserted in Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment)

Government will notify who is poor
‘Economically weaker sections’ to be defined by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.
NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
The government brought in this legislation in order to help poor citizens outside the SC, ST and OBC categories who are unable to compete with those who are better off due to economic constraints. This reservation will help hard working and deserving individuals who don’t have adequate financial resources receive good education and employment opportunities. Reservation benefits are also in line with the directive principles of state policy which call for extending help to the weaker sections.

CRITICISM OF THE BILL
The Supreme Court ruled in the Indra Sawhney case that the share of jobs or educational or legislative seats reserved for different communities cannot together exceed 50%. So, the present quota which is over and above the existing 50 per cent reservation to SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) violates the judgement of the Supreme Court of India, hence the question, when you breach the SC limit of capping reservations at 50%, where will it end?

The income eligibility criteria of Rs 8 lakh or less in a year for a household is being called absurd. In a country where income is taxed from Rs 2.5 lakh a year and Rs 8 lakh per annum puts you in the second income tax slab of 20%, to count such households as economically backward is an eyewash. It means that those who are truly deprived will again be disadvantaged even within this quota, competing with those far above them on the income ladder.

Further, anybody- SC, ST, OBC and general candidate- who doesn’t make it to the economically backward criteria will now have 10% less jobs to target. For example, OBCs who could earlier target 77.5% seats (27% reserved and 50.5% general) will now see their competitive pool coming down to 67.5% (27% reserved and 40.5% general). Students from upper-middleclass families, now have access to only 40.5% unreserved seats, compared to 50.5% earlier.

A petition challenging the quota bill has been filed in the Supreme Court saying that the Bill violates “the basic features of the Constitution”. Economic criteria cannot be the sole criterion for reservation, nor can economic reservation be restricted to general categories alone, the plea said.

It also argues that the 50% ceiling on reservations, set by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case, cannot be breached, besides questioning the “arbitrary” imposition of reservations on unaided institutions.

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide on whether shifting the logic of reservations from social injustice to economic deprivation and breaching the 50% limit violates the “basic structure” of the Constitution. Without limits, everyone wants a share of the pie but when everyone gets a quota, quotas themselves become meaningless.

BY ARUSHI SRALECH