Article 15 of the Constitution of India forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or

(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

[(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.]

[(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.]

The first two clauses of Article 15 prohibit discrimination 'on grounds only' of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. In interpreting the phrase 'on grounds only', the Supreme Court has held that the effect of the statute is relevant, not the motive.

The phrase was initially interpreted as meaning that an act or law that was based on any ground in addition to the five protected grounds, it would not be prohibited.

[(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,—

(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and

(b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this article and article 16, "economically weaker sections" shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.’

3. In article 16 of the Constitution, after clause (5), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:—

"(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category.".

The One Hundred and Third Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, introduces 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society for admission to Central Government-run educational institutions and private educational institutions (except for minority educational institutions), and for employment in Central Government jobs. The Amendment does not make such reservations mandatory in State Government-run educational institutions or State Government jobs. However, some states have chosen to implement the 10% reservation for economically weaker sections.

Currently, the quota can be availed by persons with an annual gross household income of up to ₹8 lakh (US$10,000). Families that own over 5 acres of agricultural land, a house over 1,000 square feet, a plot of over 100-yards in a notified municipal area or over a 200-yards plot in a non-notified municipal area cannot avail the reservation.[3] Persons belonging to communities that already have reservations such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the "non creamy layer" of Other Backward Classes are also not eligible for reservation under this quota(creamy layer of OBC crosses 8 lakh limit)

Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani announced that Gujarat would implement the 10% reservation policy beginning 14 January 2019, becoming the first state to implement the law.[17] Telangana Chief Secretary S.K. Joshi said on 14 January that the state would also implement the Amendment, but would consider making some changes that differ with the Amendment.

On 7 November 2022, Supreme Court of India by a 3:2 verdict in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India Writ Petition (Civil) No(S). 55 OF 2019, upheld the validity of the 103rd constitutional amendment carried out to provide legal sanction carve out 10% reservation for the economically weaker sections from unreserved classes for admission in educational institutions and government jobs[18] and held that the 50% cap on quota is not inviolable and affirmative action on economic basis may go a long way in eradicating caste-based reservation.[19][20] This constitutional amendment pushed the total reservation to 59.50% in central institutions.

Activists say the new quota will only serve the interests of historically privileged castes, calling it a “violation” of the constitution’s fundamental safeguards provided to its most marginalised people.

The EWS people have not suffered structural inequality which is based on caste. Reservation was basically for those who have suffered historic social discrimination because of their identity,

excluding the classes such as SC/ST, OBC is not constitutionally permissible

The government justified the move by arguing that the move would benefit people who cannot benefit from reservations already granted to the country’s Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and what it calls “Other Backward Classes (OBC)”.

Reservation is an instrument of affirmative action so as to ensure an all-inclusive march towards goals of egalitarian society. It is a means of inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged. Reservation on economic basis does not violate basic structure of the Constitution

the reservation for Anglo Indians in Parliament has come to an end, so likewise there should be a time limit for SC/ST reservations

the Attorney-General for India defended the amendment by submitting that the introduction of reservation up to ten per cent has to be necessarily treated as an extraordinary situation, and hence cannot be the subject of any argument of violation of the basic structure.

Caste continues to be the primary category of discrimination, but norms of deprivation could also include gender, economic status, region and so on. That will need heavy lifting, social, economic and political, and could, three decades after Mandal, reshape the politics of affirmative action towards being much more inclusive

The EWS quota is of a piece with the Centre’s attempt to fashion a new welfare architecture by reading class with caste. It has imbibed the spirit of creamy layer, formulated by the apex court in Indra Sawhney (1992) to exclude the economically better-off OBC candidates from the ambit of reservation, to explore differentiated quotas for the OBCs as well as religious minorities. The Justice G Rohini commission on OBC subcategorisation, the move to look at the conditions of Pasmanda Muslims, the panel to look into quotas for Dalit Christians, all recently constituted, are premised on the principle that economic well-being has to be considered in policy deliberations on discrimination.

IN UPHOLDING the 103rd Constitutional amendment introducing a 10 per cent quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), the Supreme Court endorsed a crucial shift in affirmative action from being a tool for enabling community-based representation to tackling individual deprivation.

The observations of this Court in the past decisions that reservations cannot be claimed only on the economic criteria, apply only to class or classes covered by or seeking coverage under Articles 15(4) and/or 15(5) and/or 16(4); and else, this Court has not put a blanket ban on providing reservation for other sections who are disadvantaged due to economic conditions

The identifier for the new criteria is based on deprivation faced by individuals. Therefore, which community the individual belongs to is irrelevant. An individual who is a target of the new 10 per cent reservation may be a member of any community or class. The state does not — and perhaps justly so — will not look into her background