Day 12: Third Public Polity Lecture: Challenges in Justice Delivery and the way forward by Hon’ble Justice Madan Lokur, Former Judge of Supreme Court of India
Event Date: 6th Dec. 2025
Event brief description
As part of the ongoing lecture series on Affirmative Action, by Former Chief Justice of India, Justice U.U. Lalit, today he has deeply gone into the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment and its implications for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation.
Justice Lalit discussed the background and objectives behind the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced reservations for EWS in admissions and public employment under Articles 15(6) and 16(6). Drawing upon the landmark Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) judgment, he explained the Supreme Court’s split verdict—where the majority upheld the amendment as constitutionally valid, emphasizing the autonomy of economic criteria within affirmative action policy.
He contrasted this with the minority opinion, which expressed concern that excluding Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes from the EWS quota violated the equality code and the basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Lalit further connected these discussions to the Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab case, clarifying constitutional nuances surrounding sub-classification within reserved categories and its impact on equitable distribution of benefits.
The lecture offered students a rare, first-hand understanding of judicial reasoning on equality, representation, and distributive justice. Engaging, reflective, and deeply analytical, it enriched the academic discourse on the evolving spectrum of affirmative action in India.
Event Detailed Description
Former Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit delivered a thought-provoking lecture on the theme of affirmative action, focusing on the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and the evolving jurisprudence on reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Addressing students and faculty, he carefully situated the EWS amendment within the broader history of reservations, which have traditionally been grounded in social and educational backwardness rather than purely economic criteria.
Justice Lalit revisited the background of the 103rd Amendment, which inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to enable a 10% reservation for EWS in education and public employment, over and above existing quotas. He highlighted how this measure represents a significant shift by expressly recognizing economic disadvantage as an independent basis for affirmative action, while excluding SCs, STs and OBCs—already covered by other reservation provisions—from the EWS quota.
Discussing the Supreme Court’s decision in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, Justice Lalit analysed the 3:2 split verdict upholding the amendment’s constitutional validity. He outlined the majority’s view that Parliament can craft economic-based reservations without violating the basic structure, and contrasted it with the minority’s concern that reservation is historically rooted in social and educational backwardness and that exclusion of existing reserved classes from EWS benefits may undermine the equality code.
Linking this to State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, he explained how the Court has simultaneously opened space for nuanced sub-classification within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to target the most deprived groups. By juxtaposing EWS reservations with intra-group sub-classification, he invited students to critically reflect on distributive justice, representation, and the future trajectory of India’s reservation framework.
Department Name: School of Law
Event Outcome
Affirmative Action Insights by Former CJI U.U. Lalit
Students gained profound clarity on the 103rd Constitutional Amendment introducing 10% EWS reservation via Articles 15(6) and 16(6), marking a shift to economic criteria distinct from traditional social and educational backwardness.
In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), they grasped the 3:2 majority upholding its validity without breaching the basic structure, contrasted with the minority's view that reservations fundamentally target social-educational backwardness, not pure economics, and exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS undermines equality.
Linking to State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), attendees understood sub-classification within SC/ST quotas to ensure equitable benefit distribution.
Overall, the session equipped students with nuanced tools for debating distributive justice and reservation's future evolution.