EWS Quota : Kerala High Court Issues Notice On PIL Challenging Govt Order To Implement Economic Reservation

The High Court of Kerala on Thursday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) petition which challenges the recent decision of the Government of Kerala to implement reservation for Economically Weaker Sections(EWS) in government jobs and seats in educational institutions.

It was on October 12 that the Pinarayi Vijayan-led government issued the orders to provide for reservation of 10% of the seats in general category for EWS category.

The PIL against the government orders was filed by one Nujaim PK, who is said to be a social worker and an active politician and the Secretary of Fraternity Movement Kerala State Committee.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly has issued notice to the Central and State Governments.

The petitioner contended that the Constitution(103rd) Amendment which inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to provide for EWS reservation was invalid as "reservation cannot be granted on the ground of economic growth".

"Even though the Constitution promotes reservation on the ground of economic backwardness, it does not promote reservation on the ground of economic backwardness. Therefore, theh amendment itself is bad and the consquential government orders isssued by the 3rd respondnet(State of Kerala) are also bad, illegal and liable to be set aside", stated the petition filed through Advocates C M Mohammed Iqbal, Anjali G Krishnan, Soumya Mol N S, P Abdul Nishad and Rehana Shukkur.

The petition also sought a directive to the State Government to refix the 10% quota for economically weaker sections after conducting a proper study regarding the population of the EWS in the general category.

In August, a 3-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India referred to a larger bench the petitions challenging the Constitution amendment providing for EWS reservation.

Can posts be reserved only on the basis of economic criterion? Is 50% ceiling absolute? - these are some of the substantial questions identified by the SC bench while referring the case to larger bench.