Examining the 103 Constitution Amendment Act
The problem when the Constitution was modified was fulfilling the fundamental structure doctrine’s standards. Since it was an established notion that reserve should be limited to 50%, the Supreme court in Mr. Balaji vs. the State of Mysore held that if the quota exceeded 50%, it would suggest dominance over Section 16(1) of the Constitution. The Indian government established a 10% reserve for the poorest 10% of the population. Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India resulted in its removal.
All of these decisions were made with the law and legislation in mind, which have never been disregarded in contravention of the fundamental structural theory. Only a ten percent reserve appears to be provided by the amendment. Using the law, Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) do not specifically state that the reserve must be 50%. As a result, any challenge based on a breach of the fundamental structural concept is invalid. A writ petition was filed by Youth for Equality, stating that the modification appears to contravene the fundamental structural concept.
Advocate Pawan and advocate Deepak have filed two further petitions. Given that the amendment was framed with equality in mind, it’s difficult to understand how the reservation undermines the principles of equality and basic structure.
103rd Amendment Act, 2019 in Indian Constitution
As a result of the 103 Constitution Amendment Act, the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes now have a 10% reservation for admission to central government and private educational institutions, as well as recruitment into central government jobs.
Private unaided educational institutions are also covered by the clause, except minority educational institutions. Economic backwardness is measured based on household income.
Contact Us