EWS quota: High income threshold, current job crisis suggest rollout is no breeze

In January 2019, months before the Lok Sabha polls, the Narendra Modi-led NDA government moved the 103rd Constitution amendment to carve out, under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, a new category of reservations in government jobs and educational institutions to benefit economically weaker sections (EWS) of society.

With negligible resistance from the Opposition, the amendments were passed by Parliament. A 10 per cent EWS quota, meant to exclusively benefit forward/upper classes, was thus introduced. This quota was to be over and above the pre-existing reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for historically backward and oppressed Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, which were beneficiaries of a quota previously capped at 15 per cent, 7.50 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively.

Justice K Chandru: 10% EWS quota SC ruling: ‘Caste’ has finally overtaken ‘class’

TK Arun’s: A flawed judgment on EWS quota

The EWS quota was immediately challenged by a bunch of petitioners in the Supreme Court who argued that by catering exclusively to the predominantly Hindu forward/upper classes it violated the Equality Code as outlined under the Constitution and, hence, was in breach of the Constitution’s basic structure. The petitioners also argued that since the EWS quota was introduced in addition to and not within the Supreme Court-mandated 50 per cent cap on reservations, it was violative of judicial pronouncements by the apex court in a number of cases, most notably, the Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992.

The Supreme Court admitted the petitions but refused to stay the rollout of the EWS quota while a Constitution Bench heard challenges to the 103rd Constitution Amendment. On Monday (November 7), the Constitution Bench, through a 3:2 majority verdict, upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd amendment and dismissed all legal challenges against the EWS quota.

Less flattering reality

Now some hard facts. As mentioned above, during the pendency of the case, the rollout of the EWS quota was not hampered as the Constitution Bench had not granted a stay on its implementation. Thus, technically, the majority judgment by Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala – Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat had given a dissenting opinion – doesn’t ‘allow’ the Centre to roll out a stalled affirmative action but only expedite a process that was already under implementation for over three years.

Watch: Explaining EWS quota, and the wide-ranging debate on the SC judgment

However, there is no denying that the Supreme Court’s verdict has caused much jubilation within the ruling BJP. Congratulations for Prime Minister Narendra Modi from his party colleagues had begun pouring in the moment the Constitution Bench upheld the EWS quota. With the next Lok Sabha elections less than two years away and the intervening period packed with polls for over a dozen state assemblies, beginning with Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat that are due over the next month, it is not surprising that the BJP, a party perennially in election mode, is raring to reap the apex court’s verdict for a rich electoral harvest.

With 2024 polls less than two years away and the intervening period packed with polls for over a dozen state assemblies, it is not surprising that the BJP is raring to reap the apex court’s verdict for a rich electoral harvest

Given that the 10 per cent EWS reservation had actually come into effect from February 1, 2019, it is pertinent to quote official figures on the rollout of the new quota and its beneficiaries over the past three years to juxtapose the BJP’s exaggerated claims of a new beginning with a reality that is far less flattering.

Has the quota translated to jobs, seats?

The Federal accessed data pertaining to the rollout of the EWS quota between 2019 and 2021 from the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. According to the official data, during this period, the Centre had allocated a total sum of a staggering ₹4,315.15 crore to various ministries for implementation of the EWS quota. However, the data of the number of persons who actually got recruited to government jobs as EWS quota beneficiaries in these two years was beyond appalling – 84 persons as on January 1, 2020, which rose to a still abysmal 132 persons as on January 1, 2021.

As per the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the number of seats increased or additional seats created in central universities to provide 10 per cent EWS reservation during 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 stood at 20,240 and 26,983 respectively. However, official data for people who availed of the EWS quota to claim these seats is not yet available.

Between 2019 and 2021, the Centre allocated ₹4,315.15 crore to various ministries for implementation of the EWS quota. However, just 84 persons as on January 1, 2020, and 132 persons as on January 1, 2021, actually got recruited to government jobs under EWS quota

The poor track record of the government in filling up vacancies in government jobs through the newly created EWS quota appears to already be following a trend that has plagued the pre-existing SC, ST and OBC reserved categories. As per replies given by Jitendra Singh, Union Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, in the Lok Sabha in March this year to questions asked by various MPs regarding unfulfilled reserved category vacancies in various central ministries and departments, the Centre monitors the filling up of backlog reserved vacancies for SC, ST and OBCs “in 10 ministries/departments, having more than 90 per cent of the employees of the Central government”.

The data shared by Singh in Parliament, though from just 10 ministries or departments, is rather instructive. As on January 1, 2021, these 10 ministries/departments – defence production, railways, financial services, posts, defence, housing & urban affairs, home affairs, atomic energy, revenue and education – collectively had 31,082 vacancies for SC, 23680 vacancies for STs and 31015 vacancies for OBCs. Of these, the Centre failed to fill up 18,132 vacancies under the SC reserved category, 14,459 vacancies under the ST reserved category and 20,702 vacancies reserved for the OBCs.

Also read: 10% EWS quota SC ruling: ‘Caste’ has finally overtaken ‘class’

Thus, over 50 per cent of the vacant jobs under all pre-existing reserved categories – SC, ST and OBC – remained unfulfilled as per the government’s own admission. A quick comparison with official data of unfulfilled vacancies under these categories over the previous three years only shows a growing inability of the government in carrying out timely recruitments within its departments. 

Unfulfilled SC-reserved vacancies across the 10 ministries/departments listed above on January 1, 2017 stood at 8,223, which rose to 15,090 on January 1, 2018, then dropped marginally to 13,560 on January 1, 2019 before shooting up again to 14,366 on the corresponding date of the following year. A similar trend was seen in the ST and OBC reserved but unfulfilled vacancies too between 2016-2017 and 2020-2021.

Unfilled vacancies worsen job crisis  

Under the general category vacancies – intended beneficiaries of which would largely belong to the same forward classes for whom the EWS quota was introduced – the scenario is much the same with official data suggesting between 30 and 60 per cent unfulfilled vacancies across all ministries and departments.

The Centre’s poor track record in filling up vacancies in government jobs through the newly created EWS quota appears to already be following a trend that has plagued the pre-existing SC, ST and OBC reserved categories

This at a time when India has been facing, arguably, its worst unemployment crisis in recent decades. Mumbai-based private research firm, Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), which publishes employment-related data every month, has almost persistently been projecting an upward trend in India’s unemployment rate for the past two years now. In July this year, the CMIE had said India’s unemployment rate was nearing a record-high of 9 per cent as against the nearly 5 per cent recorded five years ago.

The Centre has routinely rejected such projections by independent organisations and pointed at the more conservative, and expectedly self-congratulatory, estimates of unemployment that are annually given out in the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) conducted by the Union ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.

Aggressive protests staged repeatedly in different parts of the country by unemployed youth, angry and frustrated over recurring instances of examination papers for government job selection being leaked and the recruitments deferred or against the controversial Agnipath recruitment scheme, are visible evidence of the speciousness of the Centre’s claims of rising employment. Cases of a disproportionately high number of aspirants, including fairly well-educated ones, applying for vacancies of clerks and ancillary staff in government also paints a similarly disturbing image.

Economic backwardness vs social oppression

There are any number of self-explanatory reasons for the EWS quota, as envisaged by the Centre, causing more problems than giving solutions to India’s unemployment crisis and the socio-economic unrest that would be its likely corollary if current trends of shoddy recruitment by the government continue unchecked.

The 10% EWS quota was carved, with the broadest possible eligibility criteria, to exclusively benefit the forward/upper classes that constitute an estimated 15% of India’s population

The 10 per cent EWS quota was carved, with the broadest possible eligibility criteria, to exclusively benefit the forward/upper classes that constitute an estimated 15 per cent of India’s population. The office memorandum issued by the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, on January 17, 2019, listing the EWS eligibility criteria says, “persons whose families have a gross annual income less than ₹8 lakh, or agricultural land less than 5 acres, or residential flat less than 1,000 sq. ft., or residential plot less than 100 sq. yards in the notified municipalities, or residential plot less than 200 sq. yards in the areas other than the notified municipalities, are to be identified as EWS for the benefit of reservation.” 

Additionally, the identification of a person as belonging to the EWS category is to be notified “by the sState from time to time based on the family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage”, as per the Constitution’s Article 15.

Opinion: A flawed judgment on EWS quota

There are obvious reasons for those opposing the EWS quota to argue that this new reservation is not meant to benefit economically backward individuals but to extend benefits of affirmative action to upper class (Savarna) Hindus, a staunch BJP vote bank across much of the country, who have long demanded a dilution, if not total repeal, of reservations for Dalits, adivasis and backward classes.

Economic backwardness among these forward classes – the Patidars in Gujarat, Jats in Rajasthan or Haryana, Marathas in Maharashtra and so on – has periodically caused friction between them and the BJP. The economic backwardness and resultant socio-economic challenges faced by these communities may be far less compared to the travails faced by the historically oppressed SCs and STs, but this evident disparity hasn’t prevented the forward classes from recurrently demanding reservations in government jobs, educational institutions, etc.

Eligibility criteria vague

The questions of constitutional propriety or social justice aside – there is little point in delving into these now given the SC verdict – there is possibly a case for an EWS quota to be rolled out considering that many forward class individuals do genuinely face economic distress but are denied benefits of affirmative action purely because of the caste/class they are born into. However, it doesn’t require expertise in economics to figure out that the eligibility criteria for EWS determination has been set so wide that it would practically cover 90 per cent of those Indians who were hitherto excluded from the reservation policy.

An annual household income of ₹8 lakh would roughly break down to a monthly income of a little over ₹65,000. This in itself is significantly higher than what an average working class Indian – her caste or class notwithstanding – earns. It is also nearly thirty times the eligibility criteria for an individual that the government recognises as Below Poverty Line (annual household income of ₹27,000 – or a monthly income of a paltry ₹2,250). 

While it can be safely assumed that a majority of those recognised as BPL would belong to the SC, ST and OBC categories, it can’t be denied that a sizeable number would also be from the forward/upper classes who would, in reality, need an EWS quota way more than someone earning ₹65,000 per month.

The State of Inequality in India Report concluded that “nearly 15%” of the country’s entire workforce annually earned “less than ₹50,000 (less than ₹5,000 a month)” in the survey years of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020

The State of Inequality in India Report (SIIR), published by the Institute of Competitiveness earlier this year on a request by the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, had concluded that “nearly 15 per cent” of the country’s entire workforce annually earned “less than ₹50,000 (less than ₹5,000 a month)” in the survey years of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, “exacerbating the experiences of poverty and economic inequality.”

Though the SIIR did not enumerate caste/class based incomes, its report is still indicative of the earning average Indian households make. The resultant findings are way below the ₹8 lakh annual household income that the Centre has set for EWS qualification.

Also read: SC fixes 3 issues for adjudication on pleas challenging Centre’s 10 pc EWS quota

“The average monthly salary of regular salaried/wage earners in July-September 2019 amounted to ₹13,912 for rural males and ₹19,194 for urban males. Employed females in rural parts earned ₹12,090 in the same period while females in urban India earned an average ₹15,031. For the self-employed workforce, the average earnings were ₹9,661 for males and ₹4,558 for females in rural India. In the urban region, the average salaries for July-September 2019 period came to be ₹17,166 for males, and females earned an average of ₹7,141. Casual workers employed in works other than public works earned an average of ₹268 (₹297 for male workers and ₹185 for female workers) in rural India. ₹356 were earned on average in urban areas, with ₹311 for males and ₹190 for females,” the SIIR had concluded.

Landholding cut-off

If the income criterion for EWS appears grossly overstretched, the criterion on landholding is even more so. The value of land differs from locality to locality, city to city and state to state – a 1,000 sq ft residential flat in some parts of Delhi or Mumbai may be worth crores, in others it may cost several lakhs. Should its current owner-occupant qualify for EWS quota merely because her/his gross household income is ₹8 lakh is a question that framers of this new reservation scheme forgot to ask themselves.

With the eligibility criteria for EWS spread so wide, would it then not be prudent to cast similar aspersions on the implementation and efficacy of the EWS quota considering that eligible individuals with a higher income or landholding would have greater advantage over others?

Similarly, across many parts of the country, people with an agricultural landholding also use part of the same land for residential purposes. The EWS eligibility criteria makes no such distinction and merely says a person with less than 5 acres of agricultural land – still a substantial size given that a majority of farmers in India are either landless or have a landholding of less than 1 acre – can qualify for the quota as long as his gross annual household income is within the ₹8 lakh cap.

Those who have been opposed to the pre-existing reservation system for SC, ST OBCs have often argued that benefits of such affirmative action are cornered by the more electorally powerful or socially influential members among such communities. Unflattering references to the Jatavs (a Dalit caste) or Yadavs (backward class) are repeatedly made in this regard, particularly in UP.

With the eligibility criteria for EWS spread so wide, would it then not be prudent to cast similar aspersions on the implementation and efficacy of the EWS quota considering that eligible individuals with a higher income or landholding would have greater advantage over others?

The Centre had, last November, constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Ajay Bhushan Pandey, former Union finance secretary, to “re-visit the criterion given for determining EWS category”, “examine various approaches” followed in the country for identifying EWSs (since such categorisation is also done by the States) and to “recommend criteria that may be adopted for identifying EWS category in future”.

This committee had, in December 2021, submitted its report to the Constitution Bench hearing the EWS case. It is not clear whether the Pandey panel offered the SC any alternative formula for determining EWS status because the SC verdict has repeatedly referred to the criteria originally laid out by the Centre in 2019 and made no comment on the possibility of it being revised.

The Centre, on its part, seems just content with the amendment being upheld and has offered no assurance of changing the EWS eligibility criteria, so far. Thus, once the celebratory song and dance over the judicial victory ends, it would be interesting to see if the Centre can offer the jobs it has promised. The government’s track record on this score doesn’t give much confidence.