Within hours of the bill passing the Rajya Sabha, non-governmental organization
Youth For Equality filed a
PIL challenging the Bill in the
Supreme Court. The
NGO argues that the Bill violates the
basic structure of the Constitution which they claim does not permit reservation based on economic factors. They also argue that a previous Supreme Court judgement had fixed the maximum reservation allowed under all quotas at 50%. The 103rd Amendment raises the total reservation quota to 59.5%. The DMK filed a motion in the
Madras High Court challenging the Amendment on 18 January 2019. The party argues that reservations should be based on the community to which an individual belongs and not their economic status. On 8 February 2019, a Supreme Court bench headed by
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi declined to pass a stay on the Amendment, but agreed to hear the petitions challenging the Amendment.
Attorney-General K. K. Venugopal defended the government's position before a three judge bench of the Supreme Court on 31 July 2019 arguing that the 103rd Amendment was "necessitated to benefit the economically weaker sections of the society who were not covered within the existing schemes of reservation, which as per statistics, constituted a considerably large segment of the Indian population." Venugopal noted that Article 46 of the
Directive Principles of State Policy commands the State to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the population and protect them from social injustice. The Attorney-General also added, "In the country’s higher educational system, private unaided institutions play an important role providing education to over 1.34 crore students in various programmes. It is therefore essential that the socially and economically weaker section gets access to these facilities as mandated in the Constitution." The bench led by Justice
S.A. Bobde declared that the Court would reserve its orders and decide whether to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench. The Court declined to pass a stay order and the 103rd Amendment remains in effect. In August 2020, the case was referred to five-judge Constitution Bench for hearing. ==Implementation==