{"id":276967,"date":"2022-11-07T15:30:25","date_gmt":"2022-11-07T10:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=276967"},"modified":"2022-11-07T15:30:25","modified_gmt":"2022-11-07T10:00:25","slug":"supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court by a majority of 3:2 upholds the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Supreme Court<\/b>: In a matter relating to the constitutional validity of 103rd<\/span> Constitutional Amendment Act whichprovides for 10 percent reservation in appointments to posts under the State and in admissions to educational institutions to economically weaker sections (‘EWS’) of citizens, the five-judge bench of Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi, JB Pardiwala, JJ. upheld the constitutional validity of said amendment, whereas U.U. Lalit, CJ. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J. gave a dissenting opinion.<\/p>\n

The Court framed three major issues for determination:<\/p>\n

• Whether reservation is an instrument for inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes to the mainstream of society, and therefore reservation on economic criteria violated the basic structure of the Constitution?<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court said that reservation is an instrument, an affirmative action by the State to ensure an all-inclusive march towards the goals of an egalitarian society while encountering inequalities. It is an instrument not only for the inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes to the mainstream society, but also for inclusion of any class or section, so disadvantaged as to be answering the rescription of the weaker section. Thus, reservation structures singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

• Whether the exclusion of classes covered under Article 15 (4), 15(5) and 16(4) from getting benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections, violated the equality code and basic structure of the Constitution?<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court held that being in the nation of balancing the requirement of non-discrimination and compensatory discrimination does not violate equality code or does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

• Whether reservations for economically weaker sections of citizens up to 10 percent in addition to existing reservations, violated basic structure on account of the breach of the ceiling limit of 50 percent?<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court held that reservations for economically weaker sections of citizens up to 10 percent in addition to existing reservations, does not violate basic structure on account of the breach of the ceiling limit of 50 percent, because that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case applies only to reservation relating to Article 15(4)<\/a>, 15(5)<\/a> and 16(4)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Dissent<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Ravindra Bhat said that the Constitution does not permit exclusion and that the amendment undermines the fabric of social justice, thereby the basic structure. He also stated that this amendment strikes at the heart of the equality code which is the core of the Constitution as the said amendment’s exclusionary mechanism operates against the socially disadvantaged class. Further, even if the exclusion is based on deprivation, it is discriminatory; thus, it destroys the equality code. Therefore, he observed that the said amendment is arbitrary and creates hostility for the socially disadvantaged.<\/p>\n

Moreover, he stated that economic destitution and economic backwardness is the backbone of this amendment and on this account, the amendment is constitutionally indefeasible, however, excluding the classes such as SC, ST and OBC is not constitutionally permissible and violates the non-discriminatory and non-exclusionary facet of the equality code.<\/p>\n

Further, permitting breach of 50% rule becomes a great way for further infractions which would result in compartmentalisation and then rule of reservation will become right to equality and take us back to State of Madras<\/i> v. Champakam Dorairajan<\/i>, 1951 SCC 351<\/a>, since equality was to be a temporary aspect.<\/p>\n

Further, stating that though economic criteria for accessing public goods is permissible, for discrimination, it is struck down as unconstitutional and becomes void on the ground that it is violative of the basic structure of the constitution. Thus, in the minority opinion, Justice Bhat struck down the constitutional validity of the Amendment. Justice UU Lalit concurred with his opinion.<\/p>\n

[Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C)No. 55\/2019, decided on 07-11-2022<\/span>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Supreme Court: In a matter relating to the constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act whichprovides for 10 percent reservation <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":274062,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1188,2],"tags":[3260,31911,52787,33569,9651,5363],"class_list":["post-276967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot_off_the_press","category-news","tag-Constitution","tag-constitutional","tag-constitutional-amendment-act","tag-ews","tag-majority","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court by a majority of 3:2 upholds the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a matter relating to the constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act whichprovides for 10 percent reservation\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court by a majority of 3:2 upholds the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a matter relating to the constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act whichprovides for 10 percent reservation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-11-07T10:00:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Supreme-Court-1.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court by a majority of 3:2 upholds the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Supreme-Court-1.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-11-07T10:00:25+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"In a matter relating to the constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act whichprovides for 10 percent reservation\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Supreme-Court-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Supreme-Court-1.png\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court by a majority of 3:2 upholds the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court by a majority of 3:2 upholds the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 | SCC Times","description":"In a matter relating to the constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act whichprovides for 10 percent reservation","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court by a majority of 3:2 upholds the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019","og_description":"In a matter relating to the constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act whichprovides for 10 percent reservation","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-11-07T10:00:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Supreme-Court-1.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/","name":"Supreme Court by a majority of 3:2 upholds the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Supreme-Court-1.png","datePublished":"2022-11-07T10:00:25+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"In a matter relating to the constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act whichprovides for 10 percent reservation","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Supreme-Court-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Supreme-Court-1.png","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/07\/supreme-court-by-a-majority-of-32-upholds-the-validity-of-103rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2019\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court by a majority of 3:2 upholds the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Supreme-Court-1.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":277017,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/08\/dissent-10-percent-quota-ews-econimically-weaker-sections-constitutional-supreme-court-constitution-bench-32-verdict-legal-research-updates-law-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":276967,"position":0},"title":"‘Identifier for 10% Quota for EWS is economic deprivation; Social or educational backwardness irrelevant’: Key takeaways from Dissenting opinion\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"While Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, JJ wrote separate but concurrent opinions forming majority, S. Ravindra Bhat, J wrote the minority opinion for himself and U.U. Lalit, CJ.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Identifier-for-10-Quota-for-EWS-is-economic-deprivation-Social-or-educational-backwardness-irrelevant-Key-takeaways-from-Dissenting-opinion-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Identifier-for-10-Quota-for-EWS-is-economic-deprivation-Social-or-educational-backwardness-irrelevant-Key-takeaways-from-Dissenting-opinion-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Identifier-for-10-Quota-for-EWS-is-economic-deprivation-Social-or-educational-backwardness-irrelevant-Key-takeaways-from-Dissenting-opinion-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Identifier-for-10-Quota-for-EWS-is-economic-deprivation-Social-or-educational-backwardness-irrelevant-Key-takeaways-from-Dissenting-opinion-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Identifier-for-10-Quota-for-EWS-is-economic-deprivation-Social-or-educational-backwardness-irrelevant-Key-takeaways-from-Dissenting-opinion-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277007,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/08\/10-percent-quota-ews-econimically-weaker-sections-constitutional-supreme-court-constitution-bench-32-verdict-legal-research-updates-law-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":276967,"position":1},"title":"Constitutionality of 10% Quota for EWS upheld in 3:2 verdict: Key takeaways from Majority Ruling\u00a0including suggestion for prescribing time limit for reservation","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"While Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, JJ wrote separate but concurrent opinions forming majority, S. Ravindra Bhat, J wrote the minority opinion for himself and U.U. Lalit, CJ.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Constitutionality-of-10-Quota-for-EWS-upheld-in-32-verdict-Key-takeaways-from-Majority-Ruling-including-suggestion-for-prescribing-time-limit-for-reservation-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Constitutionality-of-10-Quota-for-EWS-upheld-in-32-verdict-Key-takeaways-from-Majority-Ruling-including-suggestion-for-prescribing-time-limit-for-reservation-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Constitutionality-of-10-Quota-for-EWS-upheld-in-32-verdict-Key-takeaways-from-Majority-Ruling-including-suggestion-for-prescribing-time-limit-for-reservation-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Constitutionality-of-10-Quota-for-EWS-upheld-in-32-verdict-Key-takeaways-from-Majority-Ruling-including-suggestion-for-prescribing-time-limit-for-reservation-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Constitutionality-of-10-Quota-for-EWS-upheld-in-32-verdict-Key-takeaways-from-Majority-Ruling-including-suggestion-for-prescribing-time-limit-for-reservation-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243036,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/30\/jhar-hc-%e2%94%82-article-16-retrospective-application-to-103rd-amendment-providing-reservation-to-ews-cannot-be-permitted-petition-allowed\/","url_meta":{"origin":276967,"position":2},"title":"Jhar HC | [Article 16] Retrospective application to 103rd Amendment providing reservation to EWS cannot be permitted; Petition allowed","author":"Editor","date":"January 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi J., allowing the present petition, held, \u201c\u2026the retrospective application of 10% EWS quota is against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India\u201d The present petition has been preferred for quashing advertisement no. 5 of 2019, so far as it relates to the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":280546,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/28\/supreme-court-constitution-bench-2022-roundup-the-matters-to-look-forward-to-in-2023\/","url_meta":{"origin":276967,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court Constitution Bench 2022 Roundup & the matters to look forward to in 2023","author":"Editor","date":"December 28, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The year 2022 has seen formation of multiple Constitution Benches and its hearings, wherein out of pending 498 Constitution Bench matters, 25 matters were listed before the Supreme Court from 29-08-20221 The matters involve issues relating to validity of All India Bar Exam, WhatsApp privacy policy, challenge to demonitisation policy,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitution Bench 2022 Roundup","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-40.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":250874,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/07\/economically-weaker-section\/","url_meta":{"origin":276967,"position":4},"title":"Jhar HC | 10 % EWS reservation; Can it be invoked retrospectively? HC clarifies","author":"Editor","date":"July 7, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: In an interesting case Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., had held that the 10% reservation to Economically Weaker Sections cannot be applied retrospectively. The petitioners had preferred this writ petition for quashing the Advertisement No.05\/2019, so far as it relate to the appointments to be made on the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":265653,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/20\/conundrum-on-economically-weaker-section-having-reservations-about-reservation\/","url_meta":{"origin":276967,"position":5},"title":"Conundrum on Economically Weaker Section \u2014Having Reservations about Reservation","author":"Editor","date":"April 20, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Subhashni Kumari*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/photo_2022-04-20-15.10.19.jpeg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/photo_2022-04-20-15.10.19.jpeg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/photo_2022-04-20-15.10.19.jpeg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/photo_2022-04-20-15.10.19.jpeg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/photo_2022-04-20-15.10.19.jpeg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276967","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=276967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276967\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/274062"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=276967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=276967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=276967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}