Reservation Policies Under Article 15 & 16 - Analysis Of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Quota

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Constitutional & Human Rights

Published: 2026-08-23T20:55:44.127458+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:09:43.293+00:00

RESERVATION POLICIES UNDER ARTICLE 15 & 16:

ANALYSIS OF ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTION (EWS)

QUOTA

Daksh Kumar Yadav, B.A. LL.B., Symbiosis Law School, Noida

ABSTRACT

The introduction of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment of India that provides a 10% reservation to the beneficiaries of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government employment and in educational establishments is an exciting development of India’s affirmative action regime. This paper examines the constitutional and legal background to this amendment, and its effects especially in relation to the interplay between the amendment on the one hand, and existing reservation policies under Article

15 und 16 of the Indian Constitution on the other hand. In writing, manpower

reservation in India has been used to apply on caste-based social justice where reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs has been provided under Article 15(4), 16(4) & 46. The paper reviews the legal arguments concerning the EWS quota and the execution of critical judicial precedents. In order to analyse the social significance of EWS quota as well as its implications for India’s mixed reservation structure and its potential to address the issue of unfair socioeconomic inequality without replacing the caste system in India, this paper will compare the EWS quota with other previous type of reservation. This paper also analysis constitutional precepts, historical discourses, and judicial decisions and analyses potential tensions and advantages of incorporating economic category in reservation policies.

Introduction The Union Council of Ministers, on January 7, 2019 had approved the 10% reservation for the EWS category1 in government employment and educational institutions apart from the previous 50% reservation for scheduled casts, scheduled tribes and other backward classes categories. 2 People who were not classified as SCs, STs, or OBCs, or who do not come under the 15 (5) and 15 (4) reservation categories, would profit from the modification. Article 16(6) was introduced to provide reservation for those who came from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. As a result of the majority of economically disadvantaged people being denied access to higher education, the Economically Weaker Section Reservation is essential because it will aid in addressing India's problems with socioeconomic and educational inequality.

3 The purpose of this paper is to interpret the EWS quota's interaction with other reservation policies and equality clauses while finding the potential contradictions. There are many provisions in the Indian constitution for the weaker sections, such as Article 46 and Articles 330, 332, and 335, which reserve seats and provide job possibilities. Article 30 is a minority-specific clause that guarantees minorities' ability to create and govern educational institutions. 4 In this project, the author will be explaining the concept of economically weaker background in context to article 15 and 16 of the constitution. The author’s objective in this paper is to cite relevant judicial precedents, constitution history and the constitutional validity of 103rd amendment with analytical studies.

Historical Background for Reservation in Indian Constitution In the drafting of the Indian Constitution, Article 16(4) faced significant criticism in the Constituent Assembly due to the use of the term 'backward class,'* which was seen as ambiguous. The term lacked a clear definition in the earlier drafts, leading to confusion and 1 “The economically weaker section (EWS) is the section of the society in India that belongs to the un-reserved category and has an annual family income of less than 8 lakh rupees. This category includes people that do not belong to the caste categories of ST/SC/OBC who already enjoy the benefits of reservation. The government of India introduced a 10% reservation to this category of people who are not included in the ST/SC/OBC category but belong to the un-reserved category and fulfil the economically weaker section criteria.

” 2 "Union Cabinet approves 10% reservation for economically weak among upper caste - Times of India". The Times of India. 7 January 2019; Retrieved 2024-07-20 3 Govindharaj, Yoganandham & Khan, Mr & Elanchezhian, Mr. (2023). India's reservation quota for economically weaker sections of the population with a focus on the marginalization involved and the consequences -an assessment. 10. 108-125.

4 Supra

debate. The framers of the Constitution never intended for the reservation policy for backward classes to be permanent. Their goal was to offer reservations to backward classes for a limited period, specifically targeting those who fell within the minority or marginalized categories. In the drafting of the Indian Constitution, Article 16(4) faced significant criticism in the Constituent Assembly due to the use of the term 'backward class,' which was seen as ambiguous. The term lacked a clear definition in the earlier drafts, leading to confusion and debate. In the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union of India5, the Supreme Court upheld the legislative decision to grant 27% reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in institutions funded by the government.

However, the court took a distinct position, asserting that the "creamy layer"— the more affluent and better-off individuals within the OBC category—should be excluded from the benefits of reservation. Additionally, the court ruled that non-government-funded institutions should also be exempt from the reservation policy. In a recent landmark judgment in the case of M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore6, Hon’ble supreme court has held that social and educational backwardness alone cannot be sufficient criteria for providing reservation. The court also decided the above-stated case of State of U. P. v. Pradip Tandon7 wherein the court also stated that poverty only is not sufficient to define backwardness. In State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas8 the Supreme Court said that the Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution shouldn’t be termed as exception to Article 16(1) with a restricted meaning.

What it does however, is specify that the restriction on classifications based on backwardness is only prohibited under Article 16(1)(c) if it is a characteristic that exists for a reason and not based on backwardness. The Court noted that equity does not mean equal treatment for all especially where the people are not equal in status and needs. This recognises that affirmative action especially in order to achieve equality may require a party to be treated differently. Comparative Analysis of EWS Quota with Article 15 & 16 of Constitution Just after the introduction of EWS Quota by Union, “Youth for Equality”, an NGO filed a petition in Supreme Court to determine its constitutional validity as it was breaching the 50%

5 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 265 OF 2006

6 M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649

7 State of U.P v. Pradip Tondon (1975) 1 SCC 267

8 State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490

limit set by Apex Court earlier in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)9. The petitioner urged to the court “Taken together with the fact that the high creamy layer limit of Rs 8 lakh per annum ensure that the elite in the OBCs and SCs/STs capture the reservation benefits repeatedly, the poor sections of these categories remain completely deprived” Later the court referred the question of law to a five-member bench. 10 Following this, the Supreme Court revisited the issue in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India11. The Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment, which created a 10% quota for EWS category within the general category reservation for admissions to institutes and job opportunities.

The Court acknowledged that economic affirmative action has the potential to lessen reliance on caste-based reservations, although the combined reservation percentage in central institutions could reach 59. 5% under this system. The concept of equality, enshrined in Article 14, allows for reasonable classifications beyond simply identical treatment for all. Article 14 lays the foundation for this principle, while Articles 15 and 16 address specific aspects: Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on various factors, and Article 16 guarantees equal opportunities in public employment. Landmark Supreme Court cases of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan12 and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India13 prompted legislative amendments. The Constitution was amended to include reservations for specific groups.

These changes allowed for job and educational opportunities to be set aside for people from lower castes (SC & ST Categories) as well as for other groups considered socially and economically disadvantaged. However, the Supreme Court, in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India14, established a crucial limit: reservations cannot exceed 50% of total positions, and the concept of a "creamy layer" within beneficiary communities prevents indefinite reservation benefits for the most privileged members. 15 The Indian Constitution has undergone several changes to address the issue of reservations for

9 AIR 1993 SC 477

10 "EWS - Plain English of Referral Order" | Supreme Court Observer. Legal Observer Trust. 2020-08-06. Archived from the original on 2020-09-21 | Retrieved 2024-07-20

11 Writ Petition (Civil) No (S) 55 of 2019

12 AIR 1951 SC 226

13 AIR 1993 SC 477

14 (2006) 8 SCC 212

15 Dr. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India185 (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 54th ed. 2017)

disadvantaged communities. One key amendment was the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act of 199516, which aimed to expand reservation benefits for promotions to jobs held by Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). Prior to this, reservations for these groups had been limited to initial appointments since 1955. However, a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1992, Indra Sawhney and Others vs. Union of India and Others17, limited the scope of these advancements. The Court ruled that reservation under Article 16(4) applied only to those appointments which were initial at stage, not promotions. This decision placed some restrictions on the ability of SC and ST communities to advance their careers through promotions.

18 Undoubtedly, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are among the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of society and the state is expressly authorized by Article 15(4) to make specific provisions for their social and educational advancement. Moreover, this clause supersedes any limitations stated in Article 15 or Article 29 clause (2). 19 “4. Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

”20 “4 (A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which in the opinion of the States, are not adequately represented in the services under the State. ”21 “4(B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are 16 The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 | National Portal of India. (n. d. ). Weblink:

17 Supra

18 77th Amendment of The Indian Constitution // Examarly. (2023, March 2). Weblink:

reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or Clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. ”22 Another implementation of a 10% reservation for upper castes under the EWS Quota, raises the total reservation to 59. 5%. Nevertheless, various constitutional and legal scholars hold differing views on this matter. Mr. SK Sharma, who has been former secretary to Lok Sabha have pointed out "had it introduced the quota Bill without amending the Constitution, it would have been struck down by the Supreme Court.

But since, the government has introduced the Bill with a proposed amendment in the Constitution; the proposed legislation - if it becomes law - would stand judicial scrutiny, as the apex court is only supposed to interpret the Constitution as it exists. "23 The Supreme Court case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India24 raised two important questions of law that were important enough to refer it to a five-judge bench. The core issues were: a) WHETHER the law clashed with the fundamental principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. These principles include both the idea of treating everyone the same with dignity and recognizing differences to ensure fairness. b) WHETHER the existing 50% cap on reservations applied in this case. They debated whether the new reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) fell outside this limit.

25 Initially, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 16(4), allowing reservations for disadvantaged groups in government jobs, as an exception to the equal opportunity principle of Article 16(1). They also considered Article 16(4) as optional for the government. This interpretation of court took a significant change in landmark rulings of larger benches in State of Kerala v. NM 22 Ins. by the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 | Article 16 | Constitution of India 1950 23 Upper Caste Reservation Bill, available at https://www. newsclick. in/ (Visited on 19th August, 2020)

24 Supra

25 No.36039/1/2019-Estt (Res) Government of India

Thomas26 and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India27, where the Apex Court clarified that Article 16(4) wasn't a separate rule but rather an aspect of Article 16(1). However, later judgments went back and forth, ultimately deciding that reservations under Article 16(4) are a possibility the government can choose to implement, not a guaranteed right. 28 Redefining Public Interest: Insights from Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India29 case Janhit Abhiyan’s pivotal judgment addressed the ratio decidendi of the reservation of seats for the economically weaker sections in the education and employment. This then became a matter of debate and in 2022 the Supreme Court of India constituted a five-judge constitutional bench to opine on the matter. The Bench consisted of Chief Justice of India U. U. Lalit, along with other judges of the court Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice B.

M. Trivedi and Justice J. B. Pardiwala. 30

First let us know the 103rd constitutional amendment which brought in a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society other than Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes for admission to central government and private educational institutions and recruitment in central government jobs.31 A. The Concept of EWS Quota under the act

The act also addresses the concept of 'Economically Weaker Section' and lays out the following eligibility criteria: 1. Annual gross income to be considered for the family is should not exceed Rs 80000/- per annum. 2. They should not own more than 5 acres Plot of Land for Agricultural use.

26 (1976) 2 SCC 310.

27 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

28 Anurag Bhaskar, Reservation as a Fundamental Right: Interpretation of Article 16(4), 10 INDIAN J. CONST. L. 1 (2023).

29 Ibid footnote 11

30 Jain, M., 2023. EWS Reservation Case: Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India. Justice and Law Bulletin, 2(2), pp.30-36.

31 Agarwal, Y., 2022. Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India 2022 (Economical Weaker Section Reservation

Judgment). Jus Corpus LJ, 3, p.28.

3. The family should not own a residential flat which has 1000 square feet and more. 4. The family should not own a residential plot having size more than 900 sq ft in notified municipalities. 5. The family should not own a residential plot which is more than 900sq ft located outside the notified municipal area. Now, in Janhit Abhiyan’s case the matter was first presented before a three bench of the Supreme Court where it was transferred to a constitutional bench for its determination. The court determined, ‘We are of the view that these matters give rise to serious legal issues which should be considered by a bench of five judges. ’32 The language of Order XXXVIII Rule 1(1) & Article 145(3), when we read them together implies that the matters raising important questions of law, particularly constitutional, should be referred to a bench of five judges. 33 B.

Legal Issues Raised before larger bench

1. In particular, there has been an examination of whether the 103rd Amendment has departed with the basic structure of the Indian Constitution by permitting the implementation of reservation policies drawing membership exclusively on economic factors. 2. Whether the 103rd Amendment really violates the basic structure by denying the SCs, STs OBCs and SEBCs from the reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). 3. Whether or not the 103rd Amendment violates the ruling by the court that envisages maximum 50% of the seats to be reserved. 4. Whether, the 103rd Amendment erodes the basic structure of private law by adding reservations in favour of EWS in unaided private institutions. Senior Advocate Prof. (Dr. ) G. Mohan Gopal, representing the petitioner, argued that originally, section 4(b) of SC/ST Act required the government to provide reservations and 32 Sahoo, B. and Singh, K.

, 2022. Constitutional Validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act 2019. Jus Corpus LJ, 3, p. 329. 33 Hashim, M. , 2022. Changing Nature of Reservation Policy: Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India. Jus Corpus LJ, 3, p. 123.

special provisions to classes of people which were socially and educationally backward, backwards classes and tribes, discriminated against historically to bring that prejudice to an end and make those hitherto neglected, enjoy representation in the government, in educational institutions and in public employment. 34 The problem of this amendment, however, is that it threatens to disrupt this basic form of order provision with a view to favouring the well-off cohorts of the society which are not socially or educationally deprived or are underrepresented. 35 On the other hand, Attorney General KK Venugopal’s contention was that a mere breach of Article 14 or 16 does not automatically violate the Constitution’s core principles unless the breach is extreme, shocking, or a blatant distortion of the concept of equal justice.

When considering Articles 38 and 46, alongside the Preamble, it becomes evident that the State holds the responsibility to eliminate social, economic, and political inequality and promote justice. 36 By creating new classifications through the amendment in question, the state is furthering the constitution’s objective of achieving economic justice. The exclusion of certain groups already protected by the Constitution does not violate the Equality Act. This is because economically weaker sections (EWS) within the SC, ST, and OBC categories already benefit from affirmative action in the form of reservations in education, employment, and legislative seats, while the EWS among unreserved groups have yet to receive similar constitutional protections.

The court was, however, of the view that maintaining a balance between non-discrimination, the exclusion of groups covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) from benefiting from affirmative action based on economic criteria does not violate the right to equality and does not harm the fundamental structure of the Indian Constitution. 37 This of course includes the 10% reservation which is being provided by the economically weaker sections of society, to the general provisions of the constitution no provision of the constitution has been breached here, and it is thus permissible. “This maximum restriction is 34 Garg, S. and Upadhyay, V. K. , 2024. Equality, Affirmative Action, and Economically Weaker Sections in India. Lentera Hukum, 11(1), pp. 124-157. 35 Dhanya, C. S. and Balu, N. , EWS Reservation with Special Reference to Medical Admissions in India: an Analysis.

International journal of health sciences, 6(S3), pp. 10177-10185. 36 Wankhede, A. , 2022. Affirmative action for economically weaker sections and upper-castes in Indian constitutional law: context, judicial discourse, and critique. Routledge India.

37 Dhanya, C.S. and Balu, N., 2023. A STUDY ON THE LANDMARK SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS IN

INDIA RELATING TO RESERVATION IN MEDICAL ADMISSIONS. International Development Planning Review, 22(2), pp.500-506.

not rigorous in any manner because it applies only to reserves protected by Articles 15(4),24 15(5),25 and 16(4)26 of the Indian Constitution. ” Reservation policies after the Mandal commission Case : Indra Sawney v. UOI: The Indra Sawhney38 case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, is a landmark Supreme Court decision on job reservations for disadvantaged groups in India. 39 The Mandal Commission, formed in 1979, investigated the situation of these groups. They recommended a 27% reservation in government jobs for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) on top of existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This would bring the total reservation to 50%. The government implemented this recommendation in 1990, sparking a legal challenge. The Supreme Court examined past rulings and even looked at US cases on racial discrimination.

In its judgment, the Court clarified that Article 16(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equal opportunity in government jobs, allows for classifying groups to achieve this equality. This means reserving seats or jobs for certain groups can be justified. The Court explained that Article 16(4), which specifically allows reservations for backward classes, isn't a separate rule. It's simply an example of the classification already permitted by Article 16(1). The government could have made these reservations even without Article 16(4), but this article makes it clear and unambiguous. 40 The Indian Constitution's Article 16(4) is clear: reservations in government services are meant to solve backward classes issues, not just different castes or communities. A past case involved a state reserving positions based on various groups like Harijans, backward Hindu casts, and Muslims.

The Supreme Court ruled against this because Article 16(4) only allows reservations for those considered backward. While past reservations based on communities might stand, future ones must focus on backward classes, not just general communities (something Article 16(2) prohibits). The term "backward class" in this context isn't the same as "backward caste" or community. To qualify for reservations under Article 16(4), a group cannot be defined solely by caste, community, race, religion, gender, ancestry, birthplace, or residence. Another case, General Manager, Southern Rly v. Rangachari41, challenged the reservation of

38 Supra

39The Mandal Commission Report |

NCBC

(Government of India) | Weblink:

40 Chandran, R., 2022. 'These Seats Are Reserved: Caste, Quotas and the Constitution of India'.

41 AIR 1962 SC 36

promotion opportunities (through selection) for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Here, the argument was that Article 16(4) only applied to initial hiring, not promotions. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed (in a 3:2 decision). They ruled that Article 16(4) allows reservations not just for initial recruitment, but also for promotions from lower to higher positions. This means even selection-based positions can be reserved for backward classes. The Indian courts have interpreted Article 16(4) generously in order to fulfil the Constitution's goal of helping backward classes. 42 However, there are limits to how much reservation is allowed. One reason for this is Article 335, which requires the government to balance the needs of backward classes with the need for efficient administration.

The courts have emphasized that maintaining an efficient government is essential, and reservations should not be so excessive that they harm this goal. 43 The Constitution's framers assumed that reservations would be made fairly and reasonably, and not taken to an extreme. 44 Reservations that are excessive or unreasonable can be challenged in court as being unconstitutional. This is similar to how special provisions made under Article 15(4) can be challenged if they are not reasonable. Furthermore, Art. 16 (4) cannot prevail over 16 (1) and 16 (2) which form the main essence of the provision. The purpose of EWS Quota in India in comparison with other countries: India has its caste-based reservations to aid disadvantaged groups, similar to programs in Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka and some other countries.

However, other countries like the US, Canada, and Malaysia use affirmative action. 45 Affirmative action focuses on promoting education and employment for groups facing discrimination, unlike caste-based systems. The United Nations recognises affirmative action as a way to fix the problems caused by past discrimination. Countries that have signed the agreement against racial discrimination can use these programs to create a fairer society. The UN believes that giving special help to groups that have been treated unfairly is necessary to achieve true equality for everyone. 46 42 Basavaraju, C. , 2009. Reservation under the constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 51(2), pp. 267-274.

43 Kumar, I., Fresh Challenges to the 50% Limit on Vertical Reservations.

44 “Shruti Bedi, Proportionality and Burden of Proof: Constitutional Review in India, 10 INDIAN J. CONST. L.

73 (2023).”

45 “Which countries other than India have caste-based reservation systems” | Weblink: 46 Sreenivasa Murthy, M.R. and Kandadai, S., 2023. Equality, Merit and Affirmative Action: India and USA. In Comparative Approaches in Law and Policy (pp. 21-61). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

In simpler terms, both approaches aim to create a more level playing field, but caste-based systems are specific to social hierarchy, while affirmative action focuses on addressing past wrongs faced by any disadvantaged group. A Harvard historian, Terry Martin, called the Soviet Union (USSR) the world's first "affirmative action empire. "47 He argued that the USSR's founders envisioned a state based on self-determination for different nationalities within its borders. This vision was implemented through a quota system (now abolished) that aimed to give opportunities to various social groups. These groups included ethnic minorities, women, and factory workers. While the quota system is gone, some aspects remain in modernday Russia to address the needs of specific ethnic minorities and regions. On the other hand, Sri Lanka's caste system is a multi-layered web of disadvantage.

The Sinhalese majority has underprivileged castes facing poverty due to limited access to education and state resources. Sri Lankan Tamils experience the strongest caste discrimination, living in poverty with a hidden form of social exclusion persisting in cities. Information on the caste struggles of Indian Tamils is absent from this excerpt. 48 Conclusion: While the EWS Quota aims to help those struggling financially, some worry it takes away opportunities from historically excluded castes. The core challenge is balancing the need for equal chances with ensuring the government runs smoothly. Like affirmative action in other countries, India's system strives to create a fairer playing field, but with its unique caste system, it's a complex work in progress.

Hon’ble Supreme Court has also reiterated many times that the reservation policies shouldn't push the overall quota limit too high, and they shouldn't come at the expense of efficient government functioning. In Indra Sawney’s case49, the court has reiterated that article 16 of the Constitution allows classifying groups to achieve equal opportunity. This means reserving seats for certain groups, like the newly recommended 27% for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), can be justified. However, the Court emphasized that reservations cannot exceed 50% of total positions to ensure government efficiency isn't compromised. This case remains a cornerstone for balancing the need for social upliftment 47 “Tuminez, Astrid S. “Nationalism, Ethnic Pressures, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union. ” Journal of Cold War Studies, vol. 5, no. 4, 2003, pp. 81–136. JSTOR | Weblink: https://www. jstor.

org/stable/26925339. Accessed

22 July 2024”

48 “Dalits of Sri Lanka: Caste blind but not casteless | Weblink: (Visited on 22nd July 2024)”

49 Supra

with maintaining a functional bureaucracy. India's caste system, a rigid social hierarchy dominated by Hindus, has long disadvantaged lower castes. The founding fathers of India's constitution recognized this and established policies to uplift these disadvantaged groups. The core idea was to level the playing field by offering equal opportunities to those who have been historically excluded. This included reserving a certain number of seats in education and government jobs specifically for these groups. However, the text raises a valid point. As long as the caste system continues to oppress certain groups, affirmative action policies like reservations may not be fully effective. 50 Lord Devlin argued that laws should prevent both crime and harmful actions, even if they're not technically illegal.

51 In this situation, the "harmful action" could be Parliament's attempt to uplift undeserving groups by potentially violating the Constitution. Therefore, affirmative action benefits shouldn't be given to those who haven't historically faced disadvantages. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar also wanted a class-less and cast-less society where there’s no discrimination, therefore he was of the view that the reservation for SC & ST categories would not last for more than 10 years. 52 Today, On the other hand, we are introducing new reservation quotas for different classes, castes, sections of society which is not a good thing. In author’s opinion, to maintain the true spirit of Article 15 and 16 of the constitution, government should not only introduce new reservations, but should work to uplift the disadvantaged people to achieve Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s view.

50 “Aditi Sharma & Tanvi Garg, Reservation for EWS: A Move Anti or Pro Discrimination? | 20 SUPREMO

AMICUS 40 (2020)”

51 “V.D. Mahajan (ed.), Jurisprudence and Legal Theory 94 (EBC Publishing (P) Ltd., Lucknow, 5th ed)” 52 “Saigal, S. (2021, December 6). ‘Ambedkar would be pained to see that SC/ST still need reservation.’ The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/ambedkar-would-be-pained-to-see-that-scst-stillneed-reservation/article37875984.ece”