Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. K. Stalin termed the Supreme Court order upholding reservations for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society as a setback to the century-old fight for social justice.
The DMK chief said he would consult legal experts to chalk out the next course of action.
“Today’s verdict in the reservation case for economically backward classes is a setback in the century-long struggle for social justice,” he said.
He went on to say: “After a thorough analysis of the judgment and consultation with legal experts, a decision will be taken regarding the next steps to continue our struggle against this system of reservation for the forward community which is against social justice.”
The DMK government in Tamil Nadu was one of the parties in the case and had taken a decision not to provide the EWS quota for government jobs.
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and government jobs.
While three judges of the five judge bench of Supreme Court of India uphold reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), two judges including CJI dissent on the exclusion of SCs/STs from the 10% EWS quota.
There are four judgements in the case. One judgment is by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and second judgment is by Justice Bela Trivedi. Third judgment has been passed by Justice JB Pardiwala and the dissenting judgment is by Justice Ravindra Bhat and CJI UU Lalit.
As per the majority view of, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
It has also held that breach of 50% ceiling limit by EWS reservation does not violate basic structure, Live Law reported.
“Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action by State so as to ensure all inclusive approach. It is an instrument not only for inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes…Reservations for EWS does not violate basic structure on account of 50% ceiling limit because ceiling limit because ceiling limit is not inflexible,” read the judgment by Justice Maheshwari.
In his dissenting judgment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat said that by excluding the poor among SC/ST/OBC from economically backward classes, the 103rd Amendment practices constitutionally prohibited forms of discrimination.