ADVOCATE JAWED MURTAZA

INTRAMOOT COURT COMPITITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

Ms. Sunita Awasthi (Petitioners)

VS.
Republic of Indiana
(Respondent)

APPEAL No ........................ / 2024ON

THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIANA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3. LIST OF CASES
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
5. SUMMARY OF FACTS
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUE
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
○ I. Constitutional Validity of EWS Reservation
○ II. Validity of Sub-classification within SC/ST
○ III. EWS Reservation and 50% Ceiling
○ IV. Exclusion of SC/ST from EWS Category
9. PRAYER

1
Advocate Jawed Murtaza Intra Moot Court Competition
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Short Abbreviations
Forms
Ors Others

V. Verser

SC Supreme Court

& And

Art Article

EWS Economically Weaker Section

SC Scheduled Class

ST Scheduled Tribe

NREGA National Rural Employment Generation Act

2
Advocate Jawed Murtaza Intra Moot Court Competition
 ● Article 15 (4)
● Article 15 (5)
● Article 15 (6)
● Article 16 (4 a)
● Article 16 (6)
● Article 17
● Article 30
● Article 46
● Article 338
● Article 141
● Article 341
● Article 342

STATUTES REFERRED

● CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

3
Advocate Jawed Murtaza Intra Moot Court Competition
 TABLE OF CASES

S NO. CASES

1 The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

1951 AIR 226, 1951 SCR 525

2 E V Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

AIR 2005 SC 162

3 K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka

1985 AIR 1495, 1985 SCR (Supp) 352
4 M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore,
AIR 1963 SC 649.

5 Indira Sawhney vs Union of India

AIR 1993 SC 477

6 Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & ors

2020 SCC OnLine SC 383

(4)
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Republic of Indiana is vested with jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Indiana Constitution, to hear the present matter:

Ms.Sunita Awasthi approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution of Republic of
Indiana challenging the constitutional validity of 103rd Amendment
Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana states:

"Art. 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights. conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and

(2). Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction
all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution."

(5)
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Indiana, a Union of States, gained independence in 1947.

2. The Constitution of Indiana embodies democracy, equality, and secularism and guarantees fundamental
rights.

3. Reservation policies in Indiana include SCs, STs, and SEBCs, aiming for their advancement and adequate
representation.

4. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment, introduced in 2019, provides a 10%reservation for EWS in
government jobs and educational institutions.

5. Ms. Sunitha Awasthi challenged the validity of this amendment in the SupremeCourt.

6. In 2018, the Supreme Court extended the creamy layer exclusion principle toSCs and STs.

7. Mr. Anand Sharma filed a petition against the government's inaction in implementing this principle for
SCs and STs.

(6)
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: Whether the constitutional Amendment providing for EWS reservation

on a purely economic basis ultra vires the constitution?

ISSUE 2:. Whether the sub-classification within SC/ST is valid or can SC/ST
be considered a “heterogeneous group” for the purpose of application
of“creamy layer exclusion” principle.

ISSUE 3: Ca n E W S res erv a t i o n b e g ra n t ed o n t op of t h e ex i st i n g

5 0 % cei l i n g o n t h e rese rv a t i o n ?

ISSUE 4: Whether exclusion of SC/ST from the reservation under the

EWS category is violative of the established constitutional principle.

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Contention 1: WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR

EWS RESERVATION ON A PURELY ECONOMIC BASIS ULTRA VIRES THE
CONSTITUTION ?

It is humbly submitted that the constitutional amendment providing for EWS (Economically Weaker
Section) reservation on a purely economic basis ultra vires the constitution. The Supreme Court has also
held that the objective of reservation is to provide social justice and to uplift the socially and
educationally backward classes. Reservation based solely on economic criteria may not necessarily
achieve this objective, as economic backwardness alone may not be a sufficient indication of social and
educational backwardness.

Contention 2: WHETHER THE SUB-CLASSIFICATION WITHIN SC/ST IS VALID

OR CAN SC/ST BE CONSIDERED A “HETEROGENEOUS GROUP” FOR THE
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION OF “CREAMY LAYER EXCLUSION” PRINCIPLE.

The sub-classification within SC/ST groups or the application of the "creamy layer" principle to these
groups might be invalid as the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 15(4) and 16(4), allows for
reservations to benefit those who are socially and educationally backward. The Constitution does not
explicitly preclude the possibility of sub-classification within SC/ST communities. This flexibility aims
to address varying degrees of disadvantage within these communities. In summary, sub-classification
within SC/ST groups and the potential application of the creamy layer principle can be considered valid
within the context of addressing the varied levels of disadvantage among these communities. Such
measures aim to refine and improve the effectiveness of reservation policies rather than undermine
them.

8
 Contention 3: CAN EWS RESERVATION BR GRANTED ON TOP OF THE
EXISTING 50% CELLING ON THE RESERVATION ?

Granting Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation on top of the existing 50% ceiling on
reservations include the violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, as the Supreme Court's ruling in the
Indra Sawhney case mandates that reservations should not exceed 50% to uphold the Constitution's
integrity and the right to equality. Exceeding this ceiling infringes upon the equality principle in Article
14 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures equal protection of laws for all citizens. Additionally,
increasing reservations beyond 50% undermines meritocracy, potentially leading to inefficiencies in
public services and institutions by prioritising social quotas over merit-based selection. Expanding
reservations could also exacerbate social divisions and tensions between different communities, leading
to greater societal fragmentation rather than integration. Furthermore, various Supreme Court judgments
have consistently upheld the 50% cap, emphasising the need to balance affirmative action and merit-
based selection to ensure fairness and equality in the allocation of resources and opportunities.

Contention 4: WHETHER EXCLUSION OF SC/ST FROM THE RESERVATION UNDER

THE EWS CATEGORY IS VIOLATIVE OF THE ESTABLISHED
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE.

The Right to Reform as a Fundamental Right with reference to the French revolution along with its
The exclusion of SC/ST from the reservation under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
category does not violate established constitutional principles because the Constitution provides
specific reservations for SC/ST to address historical injustices and social inequalities, separate from
economic disadvantages addressed by EWS reservations. SC/ST reservations aim to uplift these
communities due to their historical marginalization and social exclusion, and including them in the
EWS category would dilute the benefits meant for economically weaker individuals from the
general category. Affirmative action for SC/ST is based on ensuring representation and equal
opportunities due to social and educational backwardness, while EWS reservation addresses
economic deprivation across communities, targeting a different issue. Additionally, SC/ST
communities already benefit from existing reservations, and including them in EWS would lead to
redundancy, undermining both reservation systems. The Supreme Court has upheld the
constitutionality of the EWS reservation, indicating that excluding SC/ST from it is valid, and the
103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, which introduced EWS reservation, was designed to benefit
economically weaker sections of the general category without affecting reservations for SC/ST and
OBC communities.

9
 ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR EWS ON A

PURELY ECONOMICS BASIS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION ?

It is humbly submitted by the council for the petitioners to the Hon'ble court that the EWS reservation on
purely economic basis ultra vires the constitution as the primary objective of reservation under the Indian
constitution is to address social and educational inequalities experienced by historically marginalized
communities. The Supreme Court has reinforced that reservation should address systemic social and
educational disadvantages rather than purely economic factors. Past rulings emphasizes that social and
educational backwardness is a more comprehensive criterion for determining eligibility for reservation. Risk
of diluting social justice by focusing exclusively on economic criteria, the amendment risks diluting the
effectiveness of reservation policies designed to counteract historical and systematic social discrimination.

2). The appellate jurisdiction enshrined in Article 14 of Indian Constitution is also inherently violated, the
law states-

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.”

Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. If the EWS
reservation based solely on economic criteria results in unequal treatment or overlooks socially and
educationally disadvantaged groups, it might be argued that it fails to provide equal protection and could be
seen as discriminatory.
The said Article is clearly in two parts – while it commands the State not to deny to any person ‘equality
before law’, it also commands the State not to deny the ‘equal protection of the laws’. Equality before law
prohibits discrimination. It is a negative concept. The concept of ‘equal protection of the laws’ requires the
State to give special treatment to persons in different situations in order to establish equality amongst all. It
is positive in character. Therefore, the necessary corollary to this would be that equals would be treated
equally, whilst un-equals would have to be treated unequally

3). Furthermore, article 15 (1) is even violated because This article prohibits discrimination on grounds of
religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. If the EWS reservation primarily addresses economic criteria, it
may inadvertently discriminate against socially and educationally disadvantaged groups who may not
benefit equally from economic-only reservations.

4). It is observed that Article 46 of Indian constitution which mentions "The State shall promote with special
care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation." Got inherently violated as It underscores the importance of addressing social and educational
10
inequalities, which a purely economic-based reservation may not adequately address.

5). An economic-based reservation system could lead to inequitable distribution of benefits, where
individuals from socially disadvantaged backgrounds might be overlooked despite their pressing need for
support. This misalignment with the constitutional goal of providing social justice could exacerbate existing
inequalities rather than ameliorate them.

6). The amendment’s focus on economic criteria could be inconsistent with the Constitution’s mandate to
promote social equity and justice. The Constitution envisages a reservation policy that is integrative,
addressing both social and economic disadvantages in a balanced manner.

7). Previous amendments and judicial interpretations have highlighted the importance of addressing both
social and educational backwardness. The current amendment, by shifting the focus to economic criteria
alone, might be seen as a departure from these established principles.

8). The shift to economic-based reservation could complicate the implementation of existing reservation
frameworks, potentially creating inconsistencies and overlaps in how benefits are allocated and assessed.
This could lead to confusion and inefficiencies in policy execution.

9). The potential legal challenge to the amendment’s constitutionality underscores the broader implications
for reservation policies and social justice mechanisms. The amendment’s compatibility with constitutional
principles and its broader social impact warrant careful judicial and legislative scrutiny.

10). Article 15(4) and Article 16(4):

These articles empower the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens. Article 15(4) allows for reservations in educational institutions,
and Article 16(4) provides for reservations in public employment. Both articles emphasizes the need to
address social and educational backwardness, suggesting that a purely economic criterion may not align
with their intent.

11). The amendment in question is not based on economic conditions which is multidimensional , but on
financial incapacity which is transient in nature rewarding poor financial behaviour and is therefore not a
reliable criterion for giving reservation

12). The counsel would further submit that economic status is transient in nature and would keep on
changing unlike the status of backwardness, which is based on age-old caste practices and oppressions that
are immutable. The newly protected class under the amendment in question lacks historic and continuing
lack of adequate representation caused by structural or institutional barriers, so as to be eligible for positive
discrimination.

11
13). Further, the reservation is intended to be operative only until there is inadequacy in representation of
those classes and not in perpetuity. However, the present amendment prescribes essentially no end to
reservation as there would always be people poorer than others. Since the need for reservation has been
delinked from inadequacy of representation and the need to show backwardness, there is no natural guardrail
or end point to reservations connected with poverty. This constitutes a clear violation of the Equality Code
and of the basic structure of the Constitution.

14). The Constitution of Republic of India empowers the government to provide reservation for socially and
educationally backward classes, which includes economically backward classes. Reservation policies must
take into account both social and educational backwardness and economic criteria, and cannot be based
solely on economic criteria. Therefore, it is argued that reservation based solely on economic criteria is not
permissible under the Constitution, and any reservation policy that is solely based on economic criteria be
challenged on the ground of being ultra vires to the Constitution.

15).The M. Nagaraj judgment is significant because it established the constitutional permissibility of

reservations in promotions for SCs and STs while setting strict criteria to ensure that such reservations do
not undermine administrative efficiency. This balance aims to uphold both social justice and the merit
principle within the public sector.

16). The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan case is a foundational judgement in Indian
constitutional law as it established the principle that state reservation policies must align with the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This case highlighted the importance of maintaining the
balance between affirmative action and the right to equality, setting a precedent for how reservations should
be implemented in a manner that respects constitutional rights.

State v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) is a significant case in Indian constitutional law. It addressed the
issue of reservation policies in educational institutions and their impact on merit.

The case involved a challenge to the Constitution of India’s provisions on reservations, specifically Article
15(4) and Article 16(4), which allow for reservations in educational institutions and public employment for
backward classes. Champakam Dorairajan, a student, challenged the Madras State's reservation policy,
arguing it violated her fundamental right to equality.

The Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of Champakam Dorairajan, stating that the reservation policy
must not infringe upon the right to equality guaranteed by the Constitution. The court emphasized that while
the state has the power to provide reservations, it must do so in a manner that does not undermine the
fundamental right to equality. This ruling led to significant discussions and amendments, including the
introduction of the First Amendment Act in 1951, which aimed to balance reservation policies with the
principle of equality.

12
------------------

1.The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan 1951 AIR 226, 1951 SCR 525
Article 15 (4) of constitution of Indiana

Article 16 (4) of constitution of Indiana.

--------------------

13
17). Noting that economic criteria cannot be an indicator for identifying the backward classes for
reservation, the Sinho Commission’s report of 2010 asserted that Economically Weaker Sections can be
identified by states “for extending welfare measures only”. “The Commission gathers the Constitutional and
legal understanding that Backward Classes cannot be identified for providing reservation in employment
and admission in educational institutions on the basis of economic criteria and hence Economically
Backward Classes (EBCs) can be identified by the State for extending welfare measures only,” The Indian
Express reported, quoting one of the report’s chapters that reviews the history of attempts to extend
reservation to EWS.

Further, the Sinho Commission consulted the National Commission for Minorities and the National
Commission for Scheduled Tribes. Both the commissions held that economic status fluctuates and hence
reservation, which was brought in to undo historic injustice, is not the solution, adding that what is required
is proper implementation of poverty alleviation schemes.

The Sinho Commission also recommended instating welfare measures for EWS including easy access to
existing schemes in the areas of housing, healthcare, sanitation, skill development. It also recommended
ensuring that EWS women in General Category avail jobs under NREGA and such children get special
scholarships to pursue their education.

----------------
Sinho Commission’s report of 2010

14
 ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE SUB – CLASSIFICATION WITHIN SC/ST IS VALID
OR CAN SC/ST BE CONSIDERED A “HETEROGENEOUS GROUP” FOR THE
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION OF “CREAMY LAYER EXCLUSION”
PRINCIPLE.

It is humbly submitted that the sub-classification within SC/ST groups are invalid and supporting the view
that SC/ST are a homogeneous group for the purpose of the application of the "creamy layer exclusion"
principle involves several points,
1).Historically, SC communities, also known as Dalits, were subjected to untouchability, forced labour, and
extreme forms of social ostracism. They were denied access to basic resources such as education, healthcare,
and even water, and were often confined to the most menial and degrading jobs. Similarly, ST communities,
who traditionally lived in remote and isolated regions, faced systematic dispossession of their lands, cultural
assimilation pressures, and lack of access to mainstream economic opportunities.
This historical context binds SC and ST as a homogeneous group sharing common socio-economic
disadvantages. Despite internal diversity, their shared experiences of extreme social and economic exclusion
necessitate their collective consideration in policy measures. Their marginalization is deeply rooted in the
caste and tribal systems, which have perpetuated cycles of poverty, illiteracy, and lack of social mobility
over generations.
Article 341 and Article 342 of the Indian Constitution provide for the identification and listing of SC and ST
communities, recognizing their collective historical disadvantages. Article 341 empowers the President of
India to specify the castes, races, or tribes which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes with respect to any
state or union territory. Similarly, Article 342 empowers the President to specify the tribes or tribal
communities which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes. These articles serve as the constitutional basis
for identifying and addressing the unique socio-economic challenges faced by SC and ST communities,
ensuring that they receive targeted affirmative action and protection from further discrimination and
exploitation.

2).Its noted that The Indian Constitution recognizes SC/ST as distinct categories needing special protection
and affirmative action to remedy historical injustices. Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) empower the state to
make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes, including
SC/ST. This recognition is based on their shared experiences of deprivation and not on internal economic
differences.

3).Furthermore, Introducing sub-classification within SC/ST groups and applying the creamy layer
principle—whereby the relatively wealthier and more educated members within these groups are excluded
from reservation benefits—can dilute the focus and intent of these policies. Such measures can create
internal divisions and divert attention away from the broader goal of collective upliftment. The creamy layer
principle, originally intended to exclude the more affluent segments of Other Backward Classes (OBC) from
reservation benefits, is not suited to SC/ST groups, who continue to face pervasive social discrimination
regardless of their economic status.
Applying the creamy layer principle within SC/ST groups risks leaving behind those who still face severe
socio-economic hardships. Many members of these communities still struggle with inadequate access to
education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. Sub-classification could result in an uneven
distribution of benefits, where only a subset of the community gains access to opportunities, undermining
15
the constitutional mandate for affirmative action aimed at the entire group.
Article 46 of the Indian Constitution explicitly directs the state to promote the educational and economic
interests of SC/ST and protect them from social injustice and exploitation. This Directive Principle of State
Policy emphasizes the state's responsibility to ensure that SC/ST communities receive the necessary support
and protection to overcome their historical disadvantages. By focusing on the overall development and
protection of SC/ST communities, Article 46 underlines the importance of treating these groups as
homogeneous entities for the purpose of affirmative action.

---------------
Article 46 Constitution of Indiana
Article 15 (4)
Article 16 (4)
--------------

16
The emphasis on collective upliftment in Article 46 aligns with the broader goals of reservation policies. It
ensures that the benefits of affirmative action reach those most in need and prevents the creation of further
socio-economic disparities within SC/ST communities. Treating SC/ST as homogeneous groups for the
purpose of reservations and avoiding sub-classification ensures that the constitutional intent of achieving
social justice and equality is upheld.

4).The council would further submit that even relatively better-off individuals within SC/ST communities
continue to face social stigma and discrimination, which limits their true socio-economic mobility. Despite
achieving higher levels of education or economic success, these individuals are often not fully integrated
into mainstream society. They frequently encounter discriminatory attitudes and practices in various spheres
of life, including in workplaces, educational institutions, neighbourhoods, and even within the public
services. This persistent social stigma undermines their achievements and hinders their ability to fully
participate in and contribute to societal advancement.Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolishes
"untouchability," reflecting the ongoing societal discrimination that SC/ST individuals face regardless of
their economic status. The abolition of untouchability is a fundamental right, aimed at eradicating one of the
most dehumanizing practices rooted in the caste system. Despite this constitutional provision, the practice of
untouchability, in various forms, persists in many parts of India. SC/ST individuals, irrespective of their
socio-economic achievements, often face exclusion and discrimination that manifest in both overt and covert
ways.Article 17's prohibition of untouchability underscores the deep-seated nature of caste-based
discrimination and the need for continuous efforts to eliminate it. This article serves as a reminder that legal
provisions alone are not sufficient to eradicate deeply ingrained social prejudices. Therefore, the existence
of Article 17 strengthens the argument that SC/ST individuals, as a homogeneous group, still require
protection and affirmative action to overcome these pervasive societal barriers. It highlights the necessity for
policies that address the unique challenges faced by SC/ST communities in their entirety, rather than
fragmenting them based on economic criteria.

5).E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) is a landmark Supreme Court case concerning the
validity of sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes (SC) category for the purpose of reservations.
Background
● Issue: The case dealt with the Andhra Pradesh government's policy of sub-classifying SCs into
different categories for reservations in educational institutions and public employment. Specifically,
the state government had created sub-categories like "Adi Andhra," "Madiga," and "Reddy" within
the SC category, and allocated reservations based on these sub-categories.
● Petition: E.V. Chinnaiah, an individual from the SC community, challenged this policy, arguing that
such sub-classifications were unconstitutional and violated the principles of equality and non-
discrimination.
Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that sub-classifications within the SC category were
unconstitutional.
The SC bench held that the purpose of reservations is to afford special protection to the members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as a homogenous class of persons. Further classification of this
class of people would amount to tinkering with the Presidential List. This regrouping of a homogenous
group would, also amount to reverse discrimination and be violative of Article 14.

• The 2004 verdict had stated that only Parliament, and not state legislatures, can exclude castes deemed to
be Scheduled Caste from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution.

6). Also in the case of K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1985) the Karnataka government's
decision to reserve seats for specific sub-castes within the SC and ST categories for educational institutions
and government jobs was struck down by the Supreme Court stating that reservations must be made for the
SCs and STs as a whole, without breaking them into sub-castes. The Court emphasized that sub-
17
classification could lead to inequality and fragmentation of the benefits intended for SCs and STs.
--------------------
2.E V Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2005 SC 162
Article 341 of constitution of Indiana
Article 14 of constitution of Indiana
3.K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka 1985 AIR 1495, 1985 SCR (Supp) 352

-------------------

18
 ISSUE 3: CAN EWS RESERVATION BE GRANTED ON TOP OF THE EXISTING 50%
CEILLING ON THE RESERVATION ?

1) .A reservation in admissions to educational institutions, whether assisted or unaided, other than

minority educational institutions covered by Article 30 is one of the "special provisions" that the
state may make under the new clause (6) of Article 15(1),
INDIA CONST. Art.30.
INDIA CONST. Art. 15.
Reservations are permitted in funded by the state appointments and positions under the revised
clause (6) of Article 16

The reservations for the new category will be in addition to the current 15%, 7.50%, and 27%
reservations for the SC, ST, and OBC-NCL, respectively, bringing the overall reservations to
59.50%. According to an "Explanation," EWS shall be as the State may from time to time notify
based on family income and other markers of economic disadvantage.

2) It is also clear that the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the total percentage of
reservations should not exceed 50% in order for them to be considered reasonable and to prevent
them from undermining or eliminating the fundamental right to equality. The Court has emphasized
that this is an enforceable rule rather than just a guideline of good judgement. But with the most
current Constitutional amendment, this "50% ceiling" has been inadvertently exceeded.

The Constitution of India, 1950 enshrined an important, transformative tool for social mobility:
reservations. Various cases over the years have dealt with the question of how these reservations can
be granted. One of the most crucial ones is Indra Sawhney v. Union of India18. This 1992 case laid
down a ceiling limit within which reservations can be granted: more than 50% of positions should
not be reserved (the 50% rule').

In 2018, the Maharashtra government passed The Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act,
2018-19, This law introduced 16% reservations for Marathas in State services and higher education:
this pushed the overall reservation to over 50%.

19
------------
Article. 16. Constitution of Indiana

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

Article 30(6) Constitution of Indiana

The Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018.

------------------

20
3) In the case **Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):** This landmark case, also known as the
Mandal Commission case, was a pivotal moment in the history of Indian constitutional law
concerning reservations. The case arose when the Indian government, based on the
recommendations of the Mandal Commission, decided to implement a policy that provided 27%
reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs and educational
institutions.

The policy was challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated the principle of
equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The primary issues before the court were whether
reservations could be provided to OBCs and if such reservations could exceed the 50% limit.

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the reservation for
OBCs but imposed a crucial restriction: reservations in government jobs and educational
institutions should not exceed 50% of the total seats. The court reasoned that while it was
necessary to provide affirmative action to uplift the backward classes, it should not infringe
upon the right to equality of the other citizens. The court thus established the 50% ceiling limit
to ensure a balance between affirmative action and equality.

The court also provided several key principles in this judgement:

I. **Creamy Layer Exclusion:** The court introduced the concept of the "creamy layer" within the
OBCs. It held that the economically advanced individuals within the OBCs should be excluded
from the benefits of reservation, ensuring that only the truly disadvantaged sections gain from
affirmative action policies.

II. **No Reservation in Promotions:** The court ruled that reservations should be confined to
initial appointments and should not extend to promotions in jobs.

III. **Periodic Review:** The necessity of periodic review of the backwardness of classes to
continue or discontinue reservation was emphasised.

IV. **Special Circumstances:** The court noted that while the 50% limit should generally be
adhered to, it could be breached in exceptional and extraordinary situations, provided there is
21
 compelling justification.

The Indra Sawhney judgement thus laid down the foundational principles governing
reservations in India and continues to be a reference point for subsequent cases involving
affirmative action and reservation policies.

3). Also in the case ofChebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020):
The Supreme Court struck down a government order that provided 100% reservation for
Scheduled Tribe teachers in schools located in Scheduled Areas, reiterating that reservations
should not exceed 50%.

----------------
5.Indira Sawhney vs Union of India (1992)
6.Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & ors 2020 SCC OnLine SC 383
---------------

22
In the case of Mr. Balaji vs. State of Mysore (1962), the Supreme Court of India ruled that reserving
68% of seats in educational institutions was excessive and established a 50% cap on reservations to
ensure that affirmative action policies did not undermine meritocracy and equality. The primary
issue addressed in this case was the constitutional validity of the Mysore government's order, which
reserved 68% of seats for backward classes. This order was challenged on the grounds that it was
excessive and discriminatory, thereby violating the principles of equality enshrined in the Indian
Constitution.

The Supreme Court emphasizes the need to maintain a balance between social justice and equality,
underscoring that while reservations are essential for addressing historical injustices and providing
opportunities to marginalized communities, they should not disproportionately affect merit-based
admissions. The Court justified the 50% cap on reservations by highlighting the importance of
ensuring that a significant portion of seats remains available for open competition, thereby
preserving meritocracy and fairness.

The ruling in Mr. Balaji vs. State of Mysore established a critical precedent that reservations should
not exceed 50% to maintain a balance between social justice and meritocracy, ensuring fair
opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their social background. By viewing the 68%
reservation as excessive and unconstitutional, the Supreme Court reinforced the principles of
equality and merit under the Indian Constitution, ensuring that affirmative action policies do not
compromise the integrity of educational and professional opportunities. This landmark
judgement has had a lasting impact on the formulation and implementation of reservation
policies in India, shaping the discourse around social justice and equality in the country.

------------------
Mr. Balaji vs State of Mysore 1962
-----------------

23
ISSUE 4: WHETHER EXCLUSION OF SC/ST FROM THE RESERVATION UNDER THE
EWS CATEGORY IZ VIOLATIVE OF THE ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLE.

The petitioners humbly state that the exclusion of SC/ST from the reservation under the Economically
Weaker Sections (EWS) category is violative of established constitutional principles involves several
key points, referencing specific articles of the Indian Constitution:

Separate Reservation Categories (Article 15(4) and 15(5)): The Constitution, through Articles 15(4) and
15(5), provides specific reservations for SC/ST categories to address historical injustices and social
inequalities. The EWS reservation, under Article 15(6), is intended to address economic disadvantage,
which is a separate criterion from social disadvantage.

Intended Beneficiaries (Article 46): Article 46 of the Directive Principles of State Policy directs the
State to promote the educational and economic interests of SC/ST and other weaker sections. SC/ST
reservations aim to uplift these communities due to their historical marginalization and social exclusion.
Including SC/ST in the EWS category would dilute the specific focus and benefits meant for
economically weaker individuals from the general category.

Affirmative Action Logic (Article 16(4) and 16(4A)): Reservations for SC/ST, as provided under
Articles 16(4) and 16(4A), are based on affirmative action policies to ensure representation and equal
opportunities due to their social and educational backwardness. EWS reservation, under Article 16(6),
addresses economic deprivation across communities, thus targeting a different issue

SC/ST communities already benefit from reservations in education and employment under the existing
constitutional provisions. Including them in the EWS category could lead to redundancy and overlap,
undermining the purpose of both reservation systems and violating the principle of proportionality
inherent in Article 14 (Right to Equality).

24
 PRAYER

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed to this Hon’ble court that in the light of issues raised, arguments
advanced and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:.

AND/OR

Pass any other order which the bench deems fit in the best interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience, and for this act of kindness the Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners as in duty
bound shall forever pray.

Declare• that 103rd Amendment for EWS ultra vires the constitution

Hold• that the sub-classification within SC/ST for the application of the creamy layer exclusion
principle is invalid.

Accept • that the 50% ceiling limit on the reservation should not be breached

Confirm • that the exclusion of SC/ST reservation from EWS category is violative of constitutional
principles

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall forever humbly pray.

Counsels for the Petitioners

25
26