Question

Consider the following statements regarding the 103rd Constitutional Amendment:

I. Articles 15 and 16 were amended to provide 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

II. Gujarat was the first state to implement this reservation.

III. This amendment is also applicable to minority educational institutions.

Which of the above statements are correct?

• A. I, II, III
• B. I, II only
• C. II only
• D. I, III only

Answer 1

Answer:

B. I, II only

103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019

• Statement I: Correct. This amendment introduced changes to Articles 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and Article 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment). Specifically, it added clauses that enable the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). This paved the way for a 10% reservation for EWS in government jobs and educational institutions.

• Statement II: Correct. Following the constitutional amendment, Gujarat was the first state in India to enact legislation for providing 10% reservation to EWS in government jobs and educational institutions.

• Statement III: Incorrect. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, clarified that the EWS reservation is not applicable to minority educational institutions. Article 30 of the Constitution grants minority educational institutions the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

• Key Background: The 103rd Amendment was enacted based on the recommendations of a committee headed by N.C. Saxena and was later further examined by a committee headed by Major General (Retd.) S.R. Sinho. The amendment aims to address economic inequality by providing opportunities to those sections of society that were not covered by existing reservation policies based on caste or tribe.

• Legal Challenge: The validity of the 103rd Amendment Act was challenged in the Supreme Court. While the Court upheld the amendment, it did so by a majority decision, with some judges expressing dissenting opinions. The Supreme Court's ruling affirmed the state's power to create reservations for EWS but also emphasized that such reservations should not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.