EWS eligibility explained: the Rs 8 lakh limit, and who cannot apply

The line for being economically weak enough to qualify for the quota is a family income below Rs 8 lakh a year.¹

The same government measures poverty differently when no quota is being drawn. Its multidimensional poverty index counts a person as poor at:

an individual spending less than ₹47 a day in cities as against one spending less than ₹32 a day in villages

Both lines are official and both are in writing, and neither of them is in the Constitution. The 103rd Amendment contains no figure at all.

The blank Parliament left

Read the Explanation attached to clause (6) of Article 15 and the whole legal definition of who counts as poor enough is one sentence:

As per the Explanation to clause (6) of Article 15, “economically weaker sections” for the purpose of both these Articles 15 and 16 shall be such as to be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.

No threshold, no formula. The Constitution names the basis and hands the number to somebody else, and from time to time builds in that the number will be set again whenever the State chooses. One unwritten figure governs both admissions and government jobs.

That is a different arrangement from everything earlier in this series. Article 16(4A) said in the opinion of the State and the Court answered by demanding data, which is part eight of this series. Here the Constitution does not ask for an opinion or for data. It asks for a notification.

So the line that decides whether a family is inside or outside can be raised, lowered or rewritten without a word of the Constitution being touched.

What the memorandum actually says

The number was filled in by the executive, and the criteria are not only about income. The Department of Personnel and Training's memorandum of 31 January 2019 sets a gross annual family income below Rs 8 lakh,² and then four asset bars beside it:

Also persons whose family owns or possesses any of the following assets shall be excluded from being identified as EWS, irrespective of the family income

Five acres of agricultural land and above. A residential flat of 1,000 sq ft and above. A residential plot of 100 sq yards and above inside a notified municipality, or 200 sq yards and above outside one.²

Irrespective of the family income is the load-bearing phrase. The asset test is not a tiebreaker under the income test; it is a separate gate. A family can earn almost nothing and still be excluded by land it inherited or the size of the flat it lives in.

Then the definition that decides whose income is added up before the line is tested:

The term "Family" for this purpose willinclude the person who seeks benefit of reservation, his/her parents and siblings below the age of 18 years as also his/her spouse and children below the age of 18 years.

Read it for what is absent. A brother or sister who has turned 18 is outside the count whatever they earn; a sibling under 18, earning nothing, is inside it. Parents are counted with no age condition at all. Change that paragraph and the same household crosses the line without a rupee moving.

Both halves of the test, the figure and the definition, sit in a numbered paragraph of a departmental instruction. Not a statute, not a judgment.

Who cannot apply, however poor

The quota does not reach the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the non-creamy-layer Other Backward Classes. Not because those households earn too much. Because of how the class was drawn.

Article 16(6) creates a reservation for economically weaker sections other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), and Article 15(6) does the same by reference to clauses (4) and (5).³ Those are the clauses under which reservation for the already-recognised backward classes sits. So the new category is defined as the people outside the old ones.

Poverty is not the test for entry. Membership is.

That matters because of where India's poorest actually are. The judgment records the Sinho Commission's findings:

According to the Sinho Committee, 48.4% of all Scheduled Tribes are in the BPL (below poverty line) zone. This is 4.25 crores of the population.

For the Scheduled Castes the figure recorded is 38% the poorest, and among Other Backward Classes no less than 33%.¹ Set that against the size of the excluded set: those three groups together are recorded as 82% of the country's population.¹

The same index shows how unevenly that poverty sits. Bihar is recorded at 51.91% poor, Jharkhand at 42.16%, Uttar Pradesh at 37.79%,¹ against Kerala at 0.71%.¹

The machinery, and a rule nobody could read

The scheme took effect for every central direct-recruitment vacancy notified on or after 1 February 2019,² one day after the memorandum that set it out.

Three rules are worth knowing because they run against the usual assumption that a quota is a softer route. An EWS vacancy that cannot be filled does not become next year's backlog; it lapses.² There is no age relaxation and no extra attempts:

No. The conditions prescribed for General category candidates in matters of Age and Number of attempts, would also apply to EWS candidates.

And a false certificate ends the job outright, with services terminated forthwith without assigning any further reasons.⁴

Which makes the last piece of this section the strangest. Those rules existed from 2019. A plain explanation of them reached the public only because an information commission ordered it:

The Central Information Commission in a hearing held on 27.04.2022, directed to take necessary action to place in the public domain FAQs on EWS reservation to assist the information seekers in future.

Three years and three months after the criteria were notified, the department administering them was directed to publish an explanation of how they work.

Three judges, and two

The amendment was upheld 3 to 2 on 7 November 2022, which is the subject of the previous part. On the exclusion specifically, the majority held it does not breach the basic structure, and it held that private unaided institutions are bound by Article 15(6) too.¹

Justice Bhat's dissent did not object to poverty as a ground. It objected to who the quota reaches:

This additional reservation, by which a section of the population who are not socially backward, and whose communities are represented in public employment – violates the equality of opportunity which the Preamble assures, and Article 16(1) guarantees.

His reasoning is that those who benefit can, and in all probability do, belong to classes or castes which are forward and are already represented in public service.¹ That is a claim about who is on the near side of the Rs 8 lakh line once everyone poorer has been defined out of the category.

It was the minority view, and the petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.¹

The number has not moved

Put the three figures in one place. A family earning up to Rs 8 lakh a year can qualify. A person spending under Rs 47 a day in a city is counted as poor by the same government. And the groups containing 48%, 38% and 33% of their own poorest cannot apply at all, because they are covered somewhere else.

None of those three numbers is in the Constitution. The first sits in a memorandum that can be reissued, the second in an index, and the third in a commission report from 2010 that the judgment reproduces.

This series began with a reserved seat given a ten-year clock in 1932. It ends, for now, with a reservation that has no clock at all and no number in the text that created it, only a promise that the State will notify one from time to time.

MangoPOV. "EWS eligibility explained: the Rs 8 lakh limit, and who cannot apply." 15 September 2026. https://mangopov.in/stories/ews-criteria-eight-lakh-who-cannot-apply/

@misc{mangopov-ews-criteria-eight-lakh-who-cannot-apply,
  title        = {EWS eligibility explained: the Rs 8 lakh limit, and who cannot apply},
  author       = {{MangoPOV}},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://mangopov.in/stories/ews-criteria-eight-lakh-who-cannot-apply/}},
}