Malcolm Rivera
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, introduced in 2019, brought about significant changes to the Indian Constitution. The amendment's main objective was to address socio-economic inequality and enhance educational and employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged individuals from the general category, who were not covered by existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The act introduced a 10% reservation quota for these economically weaker sections in government jobs and educational institutions, including private institutions. This amendment has been upheld by the Supreme Court, which ruled that it did not violate the Constitution's fundamental structure, despite concerns about equality and the 50% reservation cap.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Constitutional validity | The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment. |
| Introduction of term | "Economically weaker sections of citizens" |
| Reservation | 10% for economically weaker sections of society |
| Applicability | All educational institutions, including private institutions, except for minority institutions under Article 30(1) |
| Constitutional articles altered | Article 15 (6) and Article 16 (6) |
| Constitutional article mandated | Article 46 (Directive Principles of State Policy) |
| Amendment act introduced in Lok Sabha by | Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, Mr. Thaawar Chand Gehlot |
| Voting in favour in Lok Sabha | 323 |
| Voting in favour in Rajya Sabha | 165 |
| Received Presidential assent on | 12 January 2019 |
| Came into effect on | 14 January 2019 |
Explore related products
$190 $54.99
What You'll Learn
- The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act introduced a 10% reservation quota for economically weaker sections (EWS) of society
- This reservation applies to admissions in educational institutions and appointments to government posts
- The eligibility criteria for EWS reservation includes a maximum annual income of ₹8 lakh and limits on the amount of agricultural land and residential property owned
- The amendment was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, with the ruling that it did not violate the Constitution's basic structure
- The 103rd Amendment Act was introduced to address socio-economic challenges and extend affirmative action to the economically disadvantaged
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act introduced a 10% reservation quota for economically weaker sections (EWS) of society
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, passed in 2019, introduced a significant change to the Indian Constitution by providing a 10% reservation quota for individuals from economically weaker sections (EWS) of society. This amendment, applicable across all educational institutions and government jobs, aimed to address economic inequality and enhance social integration.
Prior to this amendment, reservations in India were primarily based on caste-based criteria, benefiting specific groups such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). However, there was growing political and social pressure to include economically disadvantaged individuals from the general category who were not covered by existing reservations. The 103rd Amendment Act introduced the term "economically weaker sections of citizens" into the Constitution, thereby broadening the scope of affirmative action.
The reservation policy established by the amendment allows for up to a 10% quota in educational institutions and government employment opportunities. This includes private higher educational institutions and appointments within governmental services. The eligibility criteria for qualifying as an EWS focus on economic indicators such as family income, ownership of agricultural land, and residential property.
The constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment Act was initially questioned, with concerns raised about its impact on equality and the potential violation of the Constitution's basic structure. However, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, stating that it did not breach the fundamental principles of the Constitution. The Court recognised the presence of the word 'economic' in the Constitution and the concept of economic justice.
The implementation of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act is a significant step towards promoting equality of opportunity and addressing the challenges faced by economically disadvantaged sections of Indian society. It acknowledges the role of poverty and financial limitations in impeding access to education and occupational prospects, contributing to persistent social inequity. By providing reservations for the EWS, the amendment seeks to create a more inclusive and equitable environment, fostering societal integration and enhancing the socio-economic standing of millions.
AOC's Take: Amending the Constitution
You may want to see also
This reservation applies to admissions in educational institutions and appointments to government posts
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, which came into effect in India in January 2019, introduced a reservation quota for individuals from economically weaker sections of society. This reservation applies to admissions in educational institutions and appointments to government posts.
The amendment establishes a 10% reservation for economically disadvantaged individuals in government jobs and educational institutions. This includes private institutions, whether aided or unaided, except for minority institutions under Article 30(1). The reservation is in addition to the existing 50% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
The eligibility criteria for the EWS reservation include an annual family income of less than ₹8 lakh, ownership of no more than 5 acres of agricultural land, and no residential flat of more than 1,000 square feet or a house of over 100 square yards in a notified municipality.
The 103rd Amendment Act was introduced to address specific socio-economic challenges and extend affirmative action to economically weaker sections. It aimed to reduce economic disparities and provide opportunities to those facing economic challenges, thereby promoting equality of opportunity and social integration.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, ruling that it did not violate the Constitution's fundamental structure. However, there have been concerns raised about its impact on equality and the 50% reservation cap. The Court observed that there is no 'cut and dried' formula to determine if the amendment violates the basic structure, and that economic criteria have been used in the Constitution before.
Informal Amendments: Who Proposes Changes to the Constitution?
You may want to see also
The eligibility criteria for EWS reservation includes a maximum annual income of ₹8 lakh and limits on the amount of agricultural land and residential property owned
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, introduced reservations for economically weaker sections (EWS) of society, addressing specific socio-economic challenges and extending affirmative action beyond caste-based criteria. This amendment adds an additional 10% reservation for individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds in government jobs and educational institutions, including private institutions. This is in addition to the existing 50% reservation for SC, ST, and OBCs.
The eligibility criteria for EWS reservation include an annual family income ceiling of ₹8 lakh. Additionally, there are limits on the amount of agricultural land and residential property owned. Specifically, the family should not own more than 5 acres of agricultural land and should not possess a residential flat exceeding 1,000 square feet or a house larger than 100 square yards in a notified municipality.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment, ruling that it did not violate the Constitution's fundamental structure. However, there were differing opinions among the judges regarding eligibility and the number of reserved seats. While some supported the amendment, stating that treating different groups equally is unjust, others opposed the exclusion of SCs/STs and OBCs, arguing that it breaches the 50% reservation cap.
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act received Presidential assent on January 12, 2019, and came into effect on January 14, 2019, addressing economic inequality and providing opportunities to those not eligible for existing reservations.
The 18th Amendment: Prohibition's Constitutional Roots
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The amendment was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, with the ruling that it did not violate the Constitution's basic structure
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, passed in 2019, introduced a 10% reservation for individuals from economically weaker sections of society in government jobs and educational institutions. This reservation was in addition to the existing 50% reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs. The amendment sought to promote equality of opportunity and social integration by broadening the scope of affirmative action beyond caste-based criteria.
The constitutional validity of the amendment was initially questioned, with critics arguing that it violated the Constitution's basic structure and the principle of equal opportunity. They contended that the amendment favoured a few individuals and provided them with special privileges, discriminating against others.
However, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment Act, deeming it consistent with the Constitution's fundamental structure. The Court observed that the concept of economic justice was integral to the Constitution, with the word 'economic' appearing 30 times in the document. The Court held that the provisions in Articles 15 and 16, allowing for reservations by way of affirmative action, did not constitute a basic feature.
The Court's ruling acknowledged the social and political demand to address the needs of economically disadvantaged members of the general population, who felt excluded from the benefits of existing reservation policies. The amendment was seen as a necessary step towards balancing the reservation system and promoting inclusiveness and parity across all educational institutions, including private institutions.
In conclusion, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, as it introduced economic criteria for reservations without violating the Constitution's basic structure. This ruling affirmed the amendment's objective to address socio-economic challenges and extend opportunities to economically disadvantaged individuals from the general category.
Consequences of Violating Constitutional Amendments
You may want to see also
The 103rd Amendment Act was introduced to address socio-economic challenges and extend affirmative action to the economically disadvantaged
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, passed in 2019, introduced a 10% reservation for individuals from economically weaker sections of society, in addition to the existing 50% reservation for SC, ST, and OBCs. This reservation applies to both government jobs and educational institutions, including private institutions. The Act was introduced to address socio-economic challenges and extend affirmative action to economically disadvantaged sections of society, who were not covered by existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
The amendment altered Article 15 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, with the addition of Article 15(6) and Article 16(6), respectively. These articles allow the state to make special provisions for economically weaker sections (EWS) in educational institutions and government appointments or posts, respectively. The eligibility criteria for EWS reservation include a family annual income of less than ₹8 lakh, ownership of no more than 5 acres of agricultural land, and no residential flat exceeding 1,000 square feet or a house of more than 100 square yards in a notified municipality.
The 103rd Amendment Act has been subject to legal challenges, with arguments that it violates the Constitution's basic structure and the principle of equal opportunity. However, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality, ruling that it did not violate the fundamental structure of the Constitution and that the Constitution allows for reservations based on economic criteria. The Court observed that the concept of economic justice is equally important as real and substantive equality, and that treating different groups equally can lead to unjust outcomes.
The implementation of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act is expected to promote equality of opportunity and enhance social integration by providing economically disadvantaged individuals with access to high-quality education and government jobs, ultimately improving their socio-economic standing.
Unratified Amendments: The Forgotten Constitutional Proposals
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, passed in 2019, introduced a 10% reservation quota for individuals from economically weaker sections of society in government jobs and educational institutions.
The purpose of the amendment was to address economic inequality and enhance equality of opportunity by providing access to high-quality education and government jobs to economically disadvantaged people who are not eligible for existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
The Court upheld the 103rd Amendment Act, ruling that it did not violate the Constitution's fundamental structure.
To qualify for the EWS reservation, an individual must have a family annual income of less than ₹8 lakh, the family should not own more than 5 acres of agricultural land, and should not own a residential flat of more than 1,000 square feet or a house of more than 100 square yards in a notified municipality.
