Why is the 103rd Amendment's constitutional validity being challenged?

Economic Criteria as the Sole Basis: Historically, reservation in India was a "programme of historical compensation" designed to address social and educational backwardness resulting from the caste system. Challengers argue that reservation based exclusively on economic status is not constitutionally justifiable and was specifically rejected by the majority in the Indra Sawhney case.

Violation of the Equality Principle: Critics contend the amendment undermines the "Equality Code" (Articles 14, 15, and 16). They argue that by granting reservations to "well-represented classes" (the general category), the amendment increases the representation of individuals who are already disproportionately overrepresented in the public sector.

Exclusion of SC, ST, and OBC Groups: The 103rd Amendment specifically provides benefits only to those not covered under existing reservation schemes for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. This exclusion has been challenged as a violation of the principle of equal treatment under the law.

Compromise of Merit: With total reservations reaching nearly 60%, challengers raise concerns that the "merit quota" is significantly reduced, which could jeopardize the efficiency of public administration and national interest.