JKSA WEB DESK
NEET-AIQ : Supreme Court Questions Rs 8 Lakh Criteria For EWS; Asks How Can It Be Applied Uniformly Across Country
The Supreme Court on Thursday put several serious questions to the Union Government regarding its decision to adopt the criteria of annual income of Rupees 8 lakhs to determine Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) for the purpose of reservation in the All India Quota for seats under the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test(NEET).
Hearing a batch of petitions challenging the decision of the Union Government to introduce 10% EWS and 27% OBC reservation in NEET-AIQ, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna asked the Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj regarding the studies and deliberations undertaken for fixing this criteria.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna, asked the Centre to file an affidavit explaining the “basis” on which ₹8 lakh was arrived at as the economic cut-off to be applied uniformly across the country to identify beneficiaries for reservation under the EWS quota.
“Tell us what is the basis of ₹8 lakh… You can’t just say it is a matter of policy… What is the indicia of backwardness for EWS which has been applied and what exercise has been done for arriving at this by the government,” Justice Chandrachud asked the government side.
Mr. Natraj responded that the Union Cabinet had decided on the ₹8 lakh criterion “with proper notings and everything”.
“But everything has to be approved by the Cabinet. That is the Rules of Business. We are on something more fundamental… like what was the study done? You have to demonstrate what is the data before you, who carried out the study, what were the contemporaneous statistics which the government had borne in mind while deciding on ₹8 lakh as cut-off to be applied for EWS quota uniformly…” Justice Chandrachud said.
The Bench said even the 103rd Amendment had said “each State will define economic backwardness with reference to income”. The court said it had been left to each State.
“Can you say ₹8 lakh everywhere qualifies as EWS or is there a need to have a more nuanced analysis to EWS of having different yardsticks to different parts of the country based on cost of living, HRA, etc,” Justice Chandrachud asked the government.
Mr. Natraj conceded that economic parameters could change even within a single State. Earning capacity might differ from town to town within a State.
“Therefore we may have to go on broad probabilities considering the national cost of living. That is one of the index,” Mr. Natraj reasoned.
“Well, that is not justice,” Justice Nath exclaimed.
“Have you done any exercise? Have you checked the GDP per capita for every State?’ Justice Chandrachud asked.
The court asked whether the government, without application of mind, had simply decided to extend the ‘creamy layer’ cap of ₹8 lakh for Other Backward Classes (OBC) to the EWS quota also.
Justice Chandrachud said the creamy layer concept devised to exclude affluent OBCs from quota benefits could not be employed to identify EWS in order to grant them reservation sops.
“The concept of the creamy layer is exclusion... The concept is used to exclude people who have become so economically advanced among our socially and educationally backward citizens that by reason of their economic advancement alone the indicia of backwardness is obliterated… On the other hand, the case of EWS is completely different. We are not looking at the obliteration of backwardness at all here. The assumption of the 103rd Amendment is that if you are economically weak, your weakness itself poses a danger to your advancement. You may not have the money for resources like books, study, tuition, etc,” Justice Chandrachud explained.
