Constitutional Validity of 103rd Amendment Challenged In Supreme Court

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 before Supreme Court in the case of Janhit abhiyan v Union of India & Ors. On 5th August the court referred the matter to a 5 judge bench since it involves a substantial question of law in the view of Article 145(3) of the constitution of India and Order XXXVIII of Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Brief facts of the Case

Article 15 (6) and Article 16 (6) were inserted under the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. Article 15(6) and Article 16 (6) empower the State to make reservations by way of affirmative action to the extent of 10% to economically weaker sections.In the present petition, the impugned amendments are challenged on the grounds of being ultra vires as they alter the basic structure of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner has stated that the said amendments are violative of basic structure of the constitution. Theimpugned Amendment Act violates the rule of 50% quota for affirmativeaction and reservation as enunciated by this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney & Ors. V. Union of India &Ors. Further it submits that a backward class cannot be determined only and exclusively with reference to economic criterion. The reservation of ten per cent of vacancies, in available vacancies/posts, in open competition on the basis of economic criterion will exclude all other classes of those above the demarcating line of such ten per cent seats. Reservation in unaided institutions violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

State cannot insist on private educational institutions which receive no aid from the State to implement the State policy on reservation for granting admission on lesser percentage of marks, i.e., on any criterion except merit.One of the petitioners submitted that the tests of ‘width’ and ‘identity’ of equality provisions should be applied to judge the impugned amendments. Referring to M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. UOI, it is submitted that for examining amendments to equality provisions of the constitution and matters relating thereto involves a substantial question of Law and should be referred to a higher bench.

Respondent’s Argument

The Amendment Act was necessitated to do justice, to extend benefit and to provide equal opportunity in education and employment to economically weaker sections of the society who are not covered within the existing schemes of reservation. The respondents referred to Sinho Commission report dated 02.07.2010 which recommended a constitutional Amendment to promote social equality by providing opportunity in higher education and employment to those whose income is below taxable limit i.e. EBC.

To sustain a challenge against a constitutional amendment it must be shown that the very identity of the Constitution has been altered. That the amendments are in conformity with the principle of reservation and affirmative action which are touchstone of equality of citizens.

Referring to Ashok Kumar Thakur vs UOI, it submitted that the economic criteria is relevant for affirmative action under constitution. That the Indira Sawhney case cannot be applied to judge the validity of impugned amendments since it was a case of challenge of memorandum issued by GoI whereas in present case the challenge is of constitutional amendments. That the limit of 50% reservation does not apply to Article 15(6). That the impugned amendments do not violateArticle 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) of the Constitution as theState is entitled to make any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of right in Article 19(1)(g).

Referring to Societyfor Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. Attorney general said that it approved the classification based on economic criteria as provided under provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory EducationAct, 2009.

That there is no merit in the petitions and they deserve dismissal by this Court.

Decision of the Court

The Court did not look into the merits of the matter on the validity of impugned amendments. The only question examined is whether the petitions involve a substantial question of law or not.

Whether the impugned Amendment Act violates basic structure of the Constitution, by applying the tests of ‘width’ and ‘identity’ with reference to equality provisions of the Constitution, is a matter which constitutes a substantial question of law. Also whether the limit of 50% can be exceeded in special circumstances or not is also a substantial question of law. The court agreed that the case involves a substantial question of law which is required to be heard by a 5-Judge bench in view of the provision under Article 145(3) of constitution of India and Rule 1(1) of Order XXXVIII of SC rules, 2013.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -