Q.Choose any one important constitutional change that has happened in recent years. Find out why the change was made, what different arguments were put forward for the change, and the historical background to the change. If you can, try and look at the Constituent Assembly Debates to see how the issue was discussed at that time. Write about your findings.

The most significant constitutional change in recent years is the One Hundred and First Amendment Act, 2016, which introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST). This amendment fundamentally altered India’s indirect tax structure by creating a single, unified national market.

Why the change was made: The earlier system had multiple central and state taxes (like excise, VAT, service tax, and entry tax) cascading on top of each other. This led to a "tax-on-tax" effect, high compliance costs, and fragmented markets. GST was designed to eliminate this cascading, simplify tax administration, and boost economic growth by making India one common market.

Arguments for the change:

• Economic efficiency: A single tax would reduce the overall tax burden on goods and services, lower prices for consumers, and make Indian exports more competitive.
• Ease of doing business: A unified return and registration system would replace dozens of separate state and central filings.
• Fiscal federalism: GST was a "dual GST" model — both Centre and states would levy tax on the same base, but with a clear division of powers. States were guaranteed compensation for any revenue loss for five years.

Arguments against the change:

• Loss of fiscal autonomy: States feared losing the power to set their own tax rates and to tax certain items (like petroleum, alcohol, electricity) which were kept outside GST.
• Complexity: The four-slab rate structure (5%, 12%, 18%, 28%) was criticised as too complicated for a "simple" tax.
• Implementation risks: Small traders worried about the burden of digital compliance and the potential for harassment by tax officials.

Historical background: The idea of a unified indirect tax was first discussed in the Kelkar Task Force on Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (2002). The Constitution (115th Amendment) Bill was introduced in 2011 but lapsed. After extensive negotiations, the 101st Amendment was passed in 2016, with the GST Council — a joint forum of the Centre and states — created to decide rates and rules. The Constituent Assembly Debates of 1948–49 did not discuss GST specifically, but they did debate the division of taxing powers between the Union and states. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued for a strong Centre with residual powers, while some members wanted states to retain more fiscal independence. The GST compromise — a shared tax base with a joint decision-making body — reflects that original tension between central uniformity and state autonomy.

The story of the 103rd Amendment is really a story of how India’s idea of social justice has evolved. For decades, reservation in India was tied exclusively to caste — a response to centuries of social exclusion. The Constitution, through Articles 15(4) and 16(4), allowed the state to make special provisions for “socially and educationally backward classes” (which came to mean Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes). The underlying logic was that caste-based discrimination had created structural disadvantages that economic status alone could not capture.

But by the 1990s and 2000s, a new argument began to surface. Many voices — from the judiciary to civil society — pointed out that poverty and lack of opportunity also affected upper-caste citizens. A Brahmin family living in a slum, or a Kayastha child who could not afford school fees, had no access to any reservation. The question became: should economic disadvantage, independent of caste, be a valid ground for affirmative action?

The immediate trigger for the 103rd Amendment was a political promise. In the run-up to the 2019 general elections, the ruling party had committed to providing 10% reservation for “poor upper castes.” The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in January 2019, passed by both Houses with overwhelming support, and received Presidential assent on 12 January 2019. It inserted two new clauses — Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) — into the Constitution.

What did the amendment actually do? It allowed the state to make special provisions for “economically weaker sections of citizens” who are not covered by existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs. This meant that only those from the “general category” — essentially, upper castes — could benefit. The income threshold was set at an annual family income of less than ₹8 lakh, with additional criteria like owning less than 5 acres of agricultural land.

The arguments for the amendment were straightforward. Proponents said that poverty does not discriminate by caste. A poor Rajput child faces the same struggle for school fees as a poor Dalit child — yet only one gets reservation. They argued that the Constitution’s vision of equality under Article 14 includes equality of opportunity for all citizens, not just those from historically oppressed castes. The amendment, they said, simply extended the logic of affirmative action to a new category of the disadvantaged.

The arguments against were equally passionate. Critics pointed out that the 50% ceiling on total reservations, established by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney, was being breached — the total reservation in many states would now exceed 60%. They argued that economic criteria alone cannot address the deep-rooted social discrimination that caste-based reservations were designed to remedy. A poor upper-caste person, they said, does not face the same social stigma or historical exclusion as a Dalit or Adivasi. There was also a practical concern: would this new reservation eat into the existing quota for SCs, STs, and OBCs? The amendment explicitly said no — it was to be “in addition to” existing reservations — but critics worried about the overall pool of seats and jobs.

Now, what about the Constituent Assembly Debates? This is where it gets fascinating. When the Constitution was being drafted between 1946 and 1949, the question of reservation was fiercely debated. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect, was initially opposed to any reservation except for a limited period for SCs and STs. He famously said in the Constituent Assembly on 30 November 1948: “I am quite alive to the fact that the system of reservation has its own disadvantages. It is a crutch, and it is necessary for those who have lost their legs. But once they are able to stand on their own legs, the crutch must be thrown away.”

The Constituent Assembly did not discuss economic criteria for reservation at all. The debates focused entirely on caste and tribe-based backwardness. Members like K.M. Munshi argued that “backwardness” should be defined socially and educationally, not economically. The idea that poverty alone could justify reservation was simply not on the table. The framers saw caste discrimination as the primary obstacle to equality, and they designed Articles 15 and 16 accordingly.

So where does the 103rd Amendment leave us? It represents a significant departure from the original constitutional vision. The framers deliberately chose caste as the basis for affirmative action because they understood that social exclusion is not the same as economic poverty. The amendment, by contrast, treats economic disadvantage as sufficient grounds for state intervention.

The constitutional validity of the amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court, and in November 2022, a 3:2 majority upheld it. The majority held that economic criteria can be a valid basis for reservation, and that the 50% ceiling is not an absolute, inflexible rule. The dissenting judges, however, argued that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution by destroying the “identity” of Articles 15 and 16, which were designed to address social backwardness, not economic inequality.