Reservations about EWS: Govt must focus on expanding opportunities

It is unclear how far the state can fulfil its obligations to EWS families when more jobs are created in the private sector

The Supreme Court’s 3:2 verdict upholding the 10 per cent quota for government jobs and seats in educational institutions for economically weaker sections (EWS) has opened a new dynamic in the discourse over affirmative action in India. The three judges of the five-judge Bench who argued in favour of the 103rd constitutional amendment, which Parliament had passed in January 2019, have said that the quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, a pronouncement that has attracted dissent from two other judges. A law introducing an economic criterion into reservation quotas for families that earn less than Rs 8 lakh a year certainly alters the spirit of the reservation policy, which was originally focused on righting historical and existing societal discriminations against the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and later Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

There is no evidence to show that people belonging to the economically weaker sections suffer from similar biases. Indeed, the fact that the OBC reservation policy applies the same Rs 8-lakh cut-off for the “creamy layer” among them suggests that the criterion applied to the 103rd amendment is debatable. Further, as the two dissenting judges, Justice U U Lalit, chief justice of India who demits office today, and Justice Ravindra Bhat, have argued, though the amendment creates opportunities for the economically weaker sections, by excluding the poor among the SCs, STs and OBCs from the quota, the amendment practises “constitutionally prohibited principles of discrimination”.

Beyond the intricacies of the legal arguments, critics have pointed to the political nature of the law, accusing the ruling party of leveraging it to shore up its traditional upper-caste base. Though this may have been a motive, it is equally true that the Muslims, the bulk of whom are likely to fall in the sub-Rs 8 lakh income category, also theoretically stand to gain. Also, if social justice is indeed the criterion for this law, then other questions arise: Proportionate to its population share of about 18 per cent, the EWS quota is 10 per cent, which may lead to some dissatisfaction over time. The SCs and STs by contrast have higher relative quotas of 15 and 7.5 per cent, respectively, for their population share of 20 and 9 per cent; for the OBCs, the share is 27 per cent for 41 per cent of the population. Also, the EWS reservation is in addition to the 50 per cent ceiling, which can lead to demands for more reservation on criteria other than caste.

All told, it is difficult to escape the notion that political considerations have dictated this amendment, which is usually the case in such issues. Besides, it is unclear how far the state can fulfil its obligations to the families falling within the EWS when more jobs are created in the private sector. Therefore, policies that focus on expanding employment would work better for the EWS rather than the promise of jobs that are fairly limited. The government also needs to work on improving the quality of educational institutions in general, which will limit the demand for reservations to get into the chosen few. Finally, the growing clamour for new castes and communities to be designated “backward” points to the dangers of creating new categories of reservations. In an economy like India’s, this trend is likely to aggravate social tensions, which is the last thing India needs at this point.