Constitutional Validity of 103rd Amendment Challenged In Supreme Court

Must Read

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

Plea Seeks FIR Against Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde in Bombay HC for False Info

A plea has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking an FIR against Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Munde who is undergoing times of trouble due to his extra-marital affair. Recently, an FIR had been lodged against Munde by a woman, accusing him of raping her sister. Munde clarified that he was actually in a relationship with that woman and had two children. He accused the two women of blackmailing him.

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India &...

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

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

Plea Seeks FIR Against Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde in Bombay HC for False Info

A plea has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking an FIR against Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Munde who is undergoing times of trouble due to his extra-marital affair. Recently, an FIR had been lodged against Munde by a woman, accusing him of raping her sister. Munde clarified that he was actually in a relationship with that woman and had two children. He accused the two women of blackmailing him.

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors held that right to...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -