SFRBC demands to declare EWS quota unconstitutional

SFRBC demands to declare EWS quota unconstitutional


V. Rathinasabapathy, President of SFRBC, told the presspersons that the Supreme Court in its earlier Orders has said that reservation cannot be interpreted as a poverty alleviation measure.

V. Rathinasabapathy, President of SFRBC, told the presspersons that the Supreme Court in its earlier Orders has said that reservation cannot be interpreted as a poverty alleviation measure.

Members of Society for the Rights of Backward Communities (SFRBC) demand to declare the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act as unconstitutional.

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act provides for a 10% quota to economically weaker sections (EWS). The Act amended Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution to provide for reservations in government jobs and educational institutions.

V. Rathinasabapathy, President of SFRBC, told the presspersons in Coimbatore that the Supreme Court in its earlier Orders has said that reservation cannot be interpreted as a poverty alleviation measure. “Reservations are meant to provide representations for the socially- and educationally backward communities, those who were not duly represented.”

He also alleged that the Central government has been trying to protect the law and cited the verdict given by the Constitutional Bench of the apex court in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case in 1992 that declared the 10% reservation given to the EWS as unconstitutional.

Mr. Rathinasabapathy also said, “in Tamil Nadu, less than 6% of the population that falls under the EWS category are getting 10% reservation, which is against the principles of social justice.”

He also added that the Joint Action Committee of the SFRBC has planned to go for a peaceful protest on September 16 in front of the BSNL office in Coimbatore demanding to enact legislation that benefits economically weaker sections in all the communities.