This is a reasonable classification and does not violate the equality code. Thus, the creation of a separate class via the amendment ought to be treated as affirmative action for those who cannot be treated at par with other citizens. Trivedi, concurring with Maheshwari’s ruling, noted that the legislature understands the needs of people and is aware of the exclusion of people with economic constraints from reservations. Thus, a quota on an economic basis does not violate the basic structure of the country’s Constitution, he stated. It acts as a means for the inclusion of any class or section that is disadvantaged. The verdict: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari conclusively observed that reservation is an instrument of affirmative action to ensure an all-inclusive march towards achieving an egalitarian society. The Supreme Court thus tested the 103rd amendment’s validity on the anvils of the basic structure doctrine, exclusion of the economically weak among SCs, STs and OBCs, and a 50% reservation limit. Therefore, it cannot be said to be in breach of the Constitution’s basic structure, the Centre contended. The government further argued that the 10% EWS quota was over and above the accorded reservation brackets. The defence: Countering the reliance of the petitioners on the Indra Sawhney case ruling, the government contended that it dealt with a reservation policy for socially and educationally backward classes, which is different from a policy for the category of an economically weaker class. The Indian government rebutted the challenge and rested its arguments on the premise that the state is duty-bound to safeguard weaker sections of society.

Mega over quota