0 0
Read Time:1 Minute, 53 Second

By a vote of 3:2, the Supreme Court confirmed the legality of reservations for members of the economically disadvantaged portion (EWS) of society. Here are the verdicts from the judges, including those who supported EWS and those who dissented.

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides 10% reservation for members of economically weaker sections (EWS) in admissions and government posts, has been upheld by the Supreme Court by a vote of 3:2.

Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice JB Pardiwala of the five-judge panel that rendered the decision found in favour of the quota, claiming that the provision on reservation for EWS did not contradict the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

By allowing the state to make arrangements for education, the fundamental structure cannot be compromised, he continued. He pointed out that reservations are important for classes that are disadvantaged as well as those that are socially and economically disadvantaged. EWS benefits cannot be deemed discriminatory.

Justice Trivedi agreed with Justice Maheshwari that inequalities cannot be treated equitably. Moreover, she added, if the state can defend the quota, it cannot be ruled discriminatory.

“SEBC comprise distinct categories. They cannot receive the same treatment as the unreserved category. Benefits provided under EWS cannot be deemed discriminatory, according to her. Reservations go against the fundamental principles of equal opportunity. According to him, the 103rd Amendment permits no form of discrimination.

He also pointed out that OBCs and SCs make up the majority of the economically disadvantaged classes. Justice Bhat was agreed with by Chief Justice UU Lalit. Reservations based solely on economic considerations are not illegal.

.Reservations granted for historically marginalised groups cannot be used to stop other marginalised groups from advancing or to argue that provisions for EWS cannot be created through amendment. He maintained that economic discrimination is not inherently wrong.

The EWS quota does not go against the fundamental principles of the constitution or equality. The Constitution’s provisions are not violated by additional reservations, he insisted. Reservation is a tool of affirmative action by the state for the inclusion of disadvantaged sections, Justice Maheshwari continued

The post In 3:2 decision, the SC sustains the EWS quota: What the judges said in favour and against appeared first on OUR INDIA.

About Post Author

Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %

By

Average Rating

5 Star
0%
4 Star
0%
3 Star
0%
2 Star
0%
1 Star
0%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *