Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India — EWS quota case

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, which introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in admissions and government jobs.

Type: Court matter
State: Delhi
Court / station: Supreme Court of India
Watching: 0

Constitutional lawReservation

Case details

AI-extracted — may be inaccurate

Judgment delivered: 7 Nov 2022
Verdict: Upheld
Prevailing party: State

Judgement

In a 3:2 split verdict, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, ruling that the EWS quota does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Updates

Judgment7 Nov 2022
Supreme Court upholds 10% quota for EWS: Top quotes from verdict
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice JB Pardiwala ruled in favour of the quota, stating that the law on reservation for EWS does not...
Explanation in simple terms
The Supreme Court has officially ruled that the government can reserve 10 percent of jobs and college seats for people from economically weaker sections. This decision confirms that the quota is constitutional and does not violate the basic principles of the law. By upholding this policy, the court has cleared the way for the government to continue providing these benefits to individuals based on their financial status rather than their social background.
indianexpress.com
Judgment7 Nov 2022
With 3:2 split verdict, Supreme Court upholds 10% EWS quota: Key points
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the validity of the 103 constitutional…
Explanation in simple terms
The Supreme Court has officially upheld the government's decision to provide a 10 percent reservation for economically weaker sections in jobs and education. While the judges were divided in their final decision, the majority ruled that this quota is constitutional. This means the policy will continue to be implemented across the country. The court concluded that providing special support based on financial status does not violate the basic principles of the Indian Constitution.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Similar Cases

Judgment delivered

State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh — Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes

The Supreme Court of India delivered a verdict upholding the power of states to sub-classify Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservation. The ruling emphasized the principle of substantive equality in the context of affirmative action.

Punjab2 sources

2 years ago1 Watching

Closed

C.R. Jaya Sukin vs Union of India — Inauguration of new Parliament building

A public interest litigation was filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction that the new Parliament building be inaugurated by the President of India rather than the Prime Minister. The Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition.

Delhi4 sources

3 years ago0 Watching

On trial

Shiv Sena Split Case

A constitutional matter concerning defections and the formation of government. The petitioners sought to preserve rights flowing from the 2019 law amid changes under the 2026 amendment. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the claim regarding government formation depended on assumptions about the litigation outcome.

Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India — EWS quota case

Case details

Updates

Supreme Court upholds 10% quota for EWS: Top quotes from verdict

With 3:2 split verdict, Supreme Court upholds 10% EWS quota: Key points

Similar Cases

State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh — Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes

C.R. Jaya Sukin vs Union of India — Inauguration of new Parliament building

Shiv Sena Split Case

Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of UP — SC/ST Act offence quashed for lack of public utterance

NALSA v. Union of India — Transgender rights and self-identification

Ved Vignan Maha Vidya Peeth Trust v. State of Karnataka & Ors. — Land encroachment allegation challenge

Discussion