The Supreme Court has supported the Government’s legislation to provide 10% quota in job and admission in educational institutions to the economically weaker section (EWS) but the very criteria to define economic weakness are confusing.
There is considerable difference between ‘closed system’ and ‘open system’ in our societal structure. When we speak about ‘closed system’, it refers to caste, creed, religion, etc.
Once you are born in a particular family, your fate is sealed. It’s a closed system i.e., an identity that stays with you throughout your life.
When it comes to economic status, it is an ‘open system’. The financial and economic status of any individual is mobile and changes from time to time in the social pyramid. To identify eligibility on the basis of financial status will be a herculean task.
In an ecosystem, characterised by economic growth and financial inflation, identification of required beneficiaries will be difficult to achieve.
So, what qualifies a candidate for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) selection? Identity wise, such a candidate aspiring for a job or educational seat shouldn’t belong to any particular caste group which also has reservation rights on the job/seat.
Next is that the gross annual income of the family shouldn’t cross Rs 8 lakh. The inclusion limit of EWS is actually the exclusion level for India’s Other Backward Class (OBC) quota. The exclusion criteria of Rs 8 lakh annual income acts as a benchmark called as ‘creamy layer’. Hence going by the new policy, it is the official cut off for general deprivation or economic weakness in our country.
The reason why this criterion is marred by complexity is the role played by inflation and exchange rate. The inflation rate as well as the value of rupee is dynamic in nature and is highly fluctuating in a short span of time.
With rupee depreciating to its all-time low level, and inflation levels fluctuating intermittently, there is paucity of stability in terms of income levels. A monthly income of Rs 65,000 may have been comfortable income earlier, but it is deemed as deprivation in today’s scenario. A decade from now, it would be deemed as pittance. Yet our income tax policy has not been able to keep pace with the changing landscape.
The tax liability kicks in once the annual income crosses Rs 2.5 lakh.\ Even for a double income earning household, that’s below the EWS cap. Such a household is eligible to avail the benefits of EWS, but not exempted from paying taxes. This is the biggest inherent dichotomy of the EWS quota system. Such a household is economically weak, but not weak enough to be exempted from paying tax.
The EWS policy doesn’t comply with other data as well. A recent survey, on the basis of consumption, clubbed homes with an annual consumption in the range of Rs 5 lakh-Rs 30 lakh as ‘middle class’. Hence, within the ‘middle class’, there will be many households which will qualify as ‘economically weak’. From a policy perspective, such positive affirmation can also lead to eternal laggardness. People would shy away from being aspirational and would continue to benefit from such an arrangement. This would also encourage income manipulations and fudging.
The NREGA (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) was designed to provide viable and plausible employment solutions to the poor and weaker sections of the society. On the contrary, the scheme encouraged lethargy and idleness. The Government should be careful not to embark on similar path.
From a legal perspective, the Supreme Court is justified in upholding the validation of the legislation. But from implementation perspective, pragmatic reforms need to be brought about to plug the inherent complexities. Positive affirmation and quota system debate will attract considerable debate from different spheres of life. In order to create an inclusive and equitable society, it is a necessary evil.