Gujarat High Court strikes down 10% reservation for EWS [Read judgment]

Yesterday, Chief Justice Subhash Reddy and Vipul M Pancholi J of the Gujarat High Court struck down an Ordinance that provided for 10% reservation for those belonging to economically weaker sections in unreserved categories..The case is an outcome of the Patidar agitations that began last year, agitations that saw twenty-three year old Hardik Patel thrown into the national limelight..In April this year, a High Powered Committee was formed, led by Minister Nitin Patel. One of the demands placed before the Committee was the inclusion of Patidars in the OBC category..In the end, the Committee recommended the introduction of a 10% reservation for those from economically weaker sections; however this reservation would be applicable to the unreserved category alone. This reservation would be applicable to seats in educational institutions, and in state appointments. On May 1, the state government passed an Ordinance to this effect..When challenged, the High Court framed five points for consideration, namely:.Whether the 10% allocation of seats is a reservation or a classification?If it is a reservation, then can the State provide reservation on basis of economic criterion alone?Whether the State ought to have conducted a detailed survey before passing the Ordinance?Whether the State government can exceed the ceiling limit of 50%?If the Ordinance is justified even though earlier resolutions had granted financial assistance to EWS students?.For the first point, the court held that it was indeed a reservation; for the second and fourth points, the court ruled against the government, observing that,.“In view of the fact that the very group is identified based on economic criteria which is disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sahwney (supra), for the purpose of effecting reservations for backward classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, we are of the considered view that the said ratio holds good equally for identifying the group of 10% within the class of unreserved category.”.When it came to the role of scientific impact assessment studies before the Ordinance, the court said that no such study was made, and hence answered against the state. Inevitably, the court ruled against the state vis-a-vis the fifth point as well..“The impugned Ordinance No. 1 of 2016 titled as “the Gujarat Unreserved Economically Weaker Sections (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in services under the State) Ordinance, 2016, issued by the State Government is hereby quashed and set aside by declaring the same as unconstitutional and contrary to fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 13(2), 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. .Consequently, we direct that if any admissions are proposed by notifying 10% seats for weaker section of unreserved category under the impugned Ordinance, they shall be treated as not reserved and admissions to be made by treating such quota in unreserved category.”.However, the High Court did grant a stay of two weeks on this judgment, and expectedly the matter shall be heard by the Supreme Court in appeal..The case saw a number of big names appear, including the state’s Advocate General Kamal B Trivedi, AAG PK Jani, senior counsel Shalin Mehta, SN Shelat, Mihir Thakore, Amit Panchal, VD Nanavati and Shivani Rajpurohit..Read the entire judgment below.