Rattibha

#SupremeCourt Constitution Bench comprising CJI U.U. Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Ravindra Bhat, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala to continue hearings on cases challenging the constitutional validity of reservations for Economically Weaker Sections.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Follow this thread for live updates.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Sr. Adv. Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for petitioners) continues his submissions from the last hearing.
J Bhat: We wanted to avoid this. You had given a one page note and now you've given a compilation of six pages.
G.S: Those are charts for extent of reservation.
#EWS #SupremeCourt

G.S: These are just annexures.
CJI: Go ahead
G.S: I have divided the arguments in three aspects. First, that if there is a challenge to EWS classification itself in Constitution, challenge should proceed on basis that the basis of judgement (Indira Sawhney) hasn't been removed.

G.S.: This is not a new section, it's an age old classification. The interpretation of backward classes in 15,16 had included weaker sections. But Indira Sawhney said no. So these sections are well entrenched.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: Second, the caste classification was done by virtue of Indira Sawhney judgement. This is not a classification which creates a caste basis, it's precisely opposite. And in excluding backward castes, there is no violation of equality code.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: Thirdly, those seven words violate basic structure. One it gives sanctity and cements reservation already existing. It converts an enabling provision into enabled preservation. Third, by giving limit of 10%, it takes reservations beyond 50% which is basic structure.
#EWS

G.S.: Those seven words have to be severed. Further, there is no commission for EWS.
J Bhat: There is no enacted one, 340 envisions one.
G.S.: Correct.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: I argue that a suggestion is that maybe in this case a commission is necessary. Because later when EWS issues come up, a commission may be necessary. This is framework of my arguments.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: I want to submit a diagram of the three concentric circles.
[Refers to the diagram]
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: What I've tried to encapsulate is- in middle is SC/ST- their definition, special provisions provided to them, commissions for them and the process of identification through list.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: Outside those are other backward classes. For these too- their definitions, provisions and identification and commission...Outside of that is EWS, a new creation.
J Bhat: Explains the same way that Art 46 does.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: Everyone outside the large circle and not inside the inner circle are covered by EWS. The reason why it's not casteist is because it includes poor muslim,poor Christians, poor Sikhs and so on...
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: The moment you include caste as a starting point, you exclude muslims, Christians
J Bhat: This isn't a correct understanding.
G.S: Both committees' (after Indira Sawney) findings were not accepted by the govt.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: If we don't have a number, is it called upon by the CB to arrive at any finding based on data of a constitutional amendment. I can understand that if it's an executive order but it's a constitutional amendment.
For us to take any data that EWS is small, is wrong
#EWS

G.S.: We finally have a measure of taking care of those in abject poverty. And we're saying no?
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: The insertion of EWS is valid for their advancement, admissions, reservations in post. Mere naming of the EWS as a class cannot be considered violative of Constitution. They've been granted the same in housing, admission to schools, even for PILs on their behalf.
#EWS

G.S. refers to 33 judgements to establish that EWS has been granted before. He then refers to statutes for the same- such as Right to Education Act
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: There are whole bunch of case extracts- pg 15 from M.N. Thomas for instance states this. They talk about social justice in the economic context.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: Even as far as reservations are concerned, this court has referred to economic criteria to determine backwardness until Indira Sawhney Judgement.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S refers to the opinion of Justice Desai in K.C. Vasant Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1985).
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: (citing from Vasant Kumar) "Economic status alone can be the basis..." If your Lordship can take a minute to Indira Sawhney Judgement, it states "within the 27% vacancies, preference shall be given to poorer SEBCs..."
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: This was struck down in Indira Sawhney judgement but has been resurrected. Since it has not been argued that the basis hasn't been properly removed, the basis has been properly removed.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: Granting them this would result in some incidental damage or collateral damage.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

J Bhat: Keshavananda made an interpretation of 31 and 31b
G.S.: Yes
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S. refers to Waman Rao judgement.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: Exclusion in EWS is not on caste but on classes which are already receiving these benefits. If your Lordships pick 15(6) and 16(6) you'll already find that.
Bhat J: It's true. They never use the words SC/ST. They're just indicators of backwardness.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: Caste has nothing to do with it. Your Lordships have decided in Indira Sawhney that caste is starting point and it disappears in creamy layer. So what's mentioned is only classes, not castes. So EWS has nothing to do with caste, just class.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: What they're saying is that SCs, STs, OBCs, as classes have inherently economic divisions because when you exclude the creamy layer...
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: Creamy layer shouldn't be this liberal. Because there are many SCs STs who are well deserving but aren't getting it.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: Those sections who are economically weak are covered in 15 and 16. If they want to be included here, you'd upset the balance. The idea is to have them in separate circles.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: It says that look the maximum you can get is 10%. Why 10%? Economically weak are the majority of our country. Amendment today strikes a balance- OBCs and SCs and STs get reservations and include EWS in it. Rest EWS get it from here.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: SC/ST/OBCs also get political reservations and there are no ceiling limits for the same- they can 40-45%, anything.
[Refers to a table to show the number of reservations across the country]
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: For eg, Kerala has 40% for OBCs. In almost all of these, the addition of EWS takes it beyond 50%. But we have a clear winner in Tamil Nadu of course. Many states have not even activated EWS.
The data is collected on basis of statutes and govt notices.
#EWS #SupremeCourt

G.S: This is the extent of political reservations they have.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: Since there are no ceiling limits as far as SC/ST/OBCs are concerned, they extend to political reservations and the same doesn't apply to EWS- there is no strong foundation that is being shaken up. It's a small brick that's being moved.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: This is an enabling provision. Suppose none of the states activate it, whose rights are being violated? It's just sitting there.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: EWS is reliant of SC/ST/OBC reservations by requiring it to be in addition to the existing reservations. If there were no reservations, the govt removed it all and suppose then this 49% reservation came in- 15(6) and 16(6) cannot be activated at all.
#EWS #SupremeCourt

G.S: Because EWS cannot exist on it's own, it can only be in addition of existing reservations.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Bhat J: It's the first time 15 uses the word reservations. So they're recognising that 15(4) has reservations.
G.S: If you see the tenor of special provisions, special provisions can be different types- one of them is reservation.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Bhat J: So 15(4) doesn't include reservations. 15(6) introduces it. In case there is a reservation. Why give that strained expression? In case there is 1%, you can have more, in addition to 0, there can be even more. There is none doesn't mean it's 0, it means 0+1
#EWS

Bhat J: It is State wise. Some may not have SCs/STs. You're giving it a larger meaning but it is State wise.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: The provision itself doesn't become redundant.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Bench discusses.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: The extent of reservations is my problem.
Bhat J: Come to 16, you have expressions like "only". Substitute it with caste, he's excluded on the basis of that.
Here also, it has to be in addition, "additionally".
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Bhat J: If there are certain grounds on which you exclude someone, the state cannot say I'm excluding on basis of a, b , c and also because you are SC. So you can have a standalone reservation which is not dependent on other caste.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

GS.: Why were the first two lines repeated? Because of admissions. It's a repetition of 15(4),(5). They've copy pasted the same phraseology in 15(4) and (5). By doing so they've added the phrase because they recognise that one of the measures of special provisions is reservation

G.S: This was to check what are reservations and what is the extent of reservations.
Bhat J: You may have had a point if there was a relationship between them, but there is no such proximity.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: If your Lordships believe that it's a standalone provision, i have no problem with that.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: This converts 15(4) and (5) enabled provisions which is inconsistent with the constitution. There are 17 judgements which say that these are enabling provisions.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: This is contrary to the view of the court of the temporary nature of the reservations. Even if 334 stopped in 80 years and never amended, the main provisions were for SC/ST, not OBC.
CJI: Your say that by this process, they're giving permanence to something temporary

G.S.: The 50% ceiling limit is a part of the basic structure. There were few amendments of the constitution which deal with equality code...
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Bench discusses.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: Nagaraj dealt with as many as four of these- 77,81,82,85th Amendments...this list is on the equality code. Please refer to Nagaraj judgement.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: I will refer to specific paragraphs - para 14 & 15.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: "Enabling power under 16(4) cannot be rendered invalid"
J Bhat: This is actually a recognition that there is a limit. They said notwithstanding the 50% limit. Perhaps, 16(4)(b) may be the reason why 16(6) was worded that way.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: [Refers to para 33 of Nagaraj] - "Equality is an essence of democracy and a basic feature of constitution. Free and fair elections may not be basic structure but free and fair elections as a part of representative govt may be basic structure"
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: [referring to Para 104 of Nagaraj]
"Applying the other test, there is no violation of basic structure...be it reservation, an excess of that can be harmful...this has introduced merely enabling provisions."
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Bench takes a break.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: What is the time limit for you?
G.S.: I will keep it short. 40 mins more.
CJI: We thought if you made it by 12, we'll allow intervenors. Make it by 12.30.
G.S: I will
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: [continues reading from the Nagaraj judgement (para115,120,121)] "This court has struck down a balance between formal and egalitarian equality by the ceiling limit of 50%"
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: "Views have been made that caste is not the determinant of backwardness..."
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: "They do not obliterate constitutional requirements- including the 50% ceiling limit"
This has been read as a contour on the amendment power explicitly in Nagaraj.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S. refers to Maratha reservation judgement (Jaishree Patil v. Chief Minister)
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: "What the Respondents seek by asking the bench to refer the judgement (Indira Sawhney) to a larger bench strikes a chord with equality code..."
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: "The reach of the equalising principle is compelling. The constant and recurring theme was a balance- to correct the current imbalance..."
No other historic imbalance has been greater than income. We saw in covid too...
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: In concurrence, passages at para 399, Justice Bhushan's judgement... [Reads from the judgement] "If the reservation goes above 50%, it would be a slippery slope"
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: The ceiling of 50% has been provided constitutional recognition.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Bench discusses.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: Next two paras refer to this case.
G.S.: Yes.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: This list has 54 judgements, over 130 judges speaking unanimously- this is the overwhelming voice of this court.
"The upper ceiling of 50% vertical reservation should not be breached in the context of local elections".
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: Bhim Singh ji (1981 1 SCC 166) on the concept of equality says-
[Quotes the judgement]
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: The offending 7 words cement the reservations, convert enabling provisions to enabled ones and breach the 50% ceiling limit.
[G.S. submits judgements on severability of amendments]
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: [quoting another judgement which consists an extract from Kihoto judgement]
"If the doctrine of severability is not to be applied, the majority of Kihoto would be incorrect."
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: Severability has been applied in Kihoto and others.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: Regarding the issue of guardrails which were argued- my argument is that guardrails are very specific. The guardrail is there for specific purpose. So when they provided a provisio, it stated that you can relax cut off marks for SC/STs.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: That guardrail in Ashok Kumar Thakur, saying that 3/5 judges speaking in single voice about relaxing the cut off for OBCs.
Subsequently there is a second judgement of constitution bench- 2009 7 SCC...
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S.: In 335, you have relaxation for SC/STs. And in this constitution bench, relaxation for OBC. So these guardrails are for specific, time bound purposes.
Arguments of saying that guardrails are missing and thus it violates constitution is wrong.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S: Substantive equality comes only when you take measures for poor.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

G.S. concludes arguments.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Adv Mutthuraj: I am appearing for State of Tamil Nadu in support of petitioners. You can decide if you want to hear me before or after AG finishes. I can finish it before 1 today.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: We will first hear the intervenors, then let's see what AG says. Then thereafter.
You're the only state supporting the challenge? Kerala is also supporting the petitioners?
Adv. Mutthuraj: I don't know about Kerala
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: Very well, we'll hear you till 1.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: Principle of reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness are part of Art 14. Down the line, right up to Shayra Bano, Art 14 has been held to be soul of the constitution.
[Cites two paras from Keshavananda Bharti]
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

State of TN: (citing Keshavananda) "Exclusion of Art 14 is to evolve new principles of equality in the light of DPSPs..."
This was Justice Ray's Judgement.
CJI: Justice Ray was in the minority.
TN: Difficult to keep track with 11 judges what ratio is.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

State of TN: In Indira Sawhney, your lordships have held that 16(4) is not exhaustive of the possibilities of backwardness. So apart from social and educational backwardness, there is a possibility of some other class which can be characterized as backward.
#EWS #SupremeCourt

Counsel for Tamil Nadu refers to Justice Jeevan Reddy's opinion in Indira Sawhney judgement.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

State of TN: "Reservations can be provided under clause 1 of Article 16. It is not confined to exemptions...A caste is a social class in India...There are several other groups that are backward for purpose of 16"
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

State of TN: Economic criteria by itself cannot be basis of classification. Then, any such classification would be infringement of Art 14. The only question you have to consider if principles of art 14 constitutes basic structure.
[Refers to Nagaraj judgement]

State of TN: "In Minerva Mills, Chandrachud CJ states that 14 & 19 confer rights which are elementary for the effective functioning of a democracy."
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

State of TN: If article 14 is withdrawn, the country will be torn apart by preferential treatment. So in other words, Art 14 is a part of the basic structure. The only question is whether economic criteria by itself will violate principle of equality?
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

State of TN: In Indira Sawhney, your Lordships have held that solely on economic criteria violates...
CJI: That is why, Mr. Sankaranarayanan saya that economic criteria in backwardness is something which is accepted.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

State of TN: If this view is taken that economic criteria can be basis for classification, your Lordships will have to revisit Indira Sawhney and that cannot be done. Second, 9 judges in Keshavananda do not agree with the view of 2 judges that legislature can evolve principle...

State of TN: ...of equality. So even that will have to be revisited.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

State of TN: Can we think of reservation for upper classes as within principles of equality?
CJI: That is what Dr. Mohan Gopal and Mr. Kumar argued.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

State of TN concludes.
CJI: For all other intervenors, we give you half an hour. Then we will start hearing other side's arguments.
Bench to continue hearings at 2 pm.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel intervening in one of the IAs starts his submissions.
Counsel: I am appearing for some backward communities, OBC communities from Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: A creamy layer in OBC can only be in these 50%. Those rights are being taken away. I've been bought to unreserved category. The equality code is violated.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: This violates basic structure of equality code; economic criteria cannot be sole basis; union cannot take shelter under Art 46 as it doesn't cover this at all and; 50% cap is basic structure and cannot be violated at any cost.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: Reading down may not be possible in this case- please refer to Minerva Mills for this.
This is a vertical reservation for a forward class under the camouflage of EWS.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: It is on basis of same economic criteria in creamy layer. In OBCs, economic criteria has been fixed and above that creamy layer is there and they're sent to open category. This is a purely forward class reservation.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: Whether the constitution envisions reservations for forward class? What is equality code? Constitution wants absolute equality but they know that we need special provisions for some.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: This backward class was defined as socially and educationally backward. When the 1st amendment came, it was in the same line. For 72 years no other class has been given reservation. For the first time we're granting, and that to forward class.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: Was this envisioned? This goes against the scheme of the constitution and the Equality code. It's on philosophy of unequals and equals - not poverty.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel quotes a judgement.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: Coming back to the second point which is most vital, is 46 meant for forward class? I have not seen a single judgement which says that 46 includes forward class.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: Given help to needy is completely different than art 46. Art 46 defines classes in 15 and 16. Example, in historic context, Pandavas became poor in a short span? Was it society or their micheif?
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

J Bhat: There are generations of people who are poor. They have nothing to do with individuals, what about those under MNREGA? We have to look from that angle.
Counsel: That is the government's duty but it doesn't give them right under Art 46.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: These articles have to be read together. 15,16, 46. This i say so because of consistent judgements by Lordships. Ambedkar in the first constitutional amendment says this.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel quotes Dr. Ambedkar from parliamentary debates.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel cites the judgement - Chitralekha v. State of Mysore.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel cites the judgement of State of Kerala v. M.N. Thomas.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: "The SCs and STs have found special mention under Art 46- means not all backward classes but only the most depressed...will receive such privileges".
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: All of this has been placed. What else are the submissions?
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: [quoting from a judgement] "SCs/STs are the weakest sections of society".
Weaker sections here mean a terribly backward classes.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: On 50%, many judgements say that this is a part of the basic structure. The effect of this is in TN, 69% reservations for SEBCs are there. If they add 10%, that will become 79% and then other quotas for women etc. You're giving less than 15% chances for open category.

The first intervening counsel concludes.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Another intervening counsel: I'm not appearing for any of the parties. I'm trying to assist.
CJI: You give your submissions in writing and we'll look into that.
Counsel: Few things I want to read out.
CJI: It becomes extremely difficult to control this way.
#EWS #SupremeCourt

CJI: You haven't even filed an intervention. What it means is that once we give leeway to somebody, we can't make distinctions. It places us in an embarrassing situation. We then won't have a moral right to not hear others.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Another intervenor starts his submissions.
Counsel: Ideal combination should be 11 judges bench because of Indira Sawhney.
CJI: You are saying that because of Indira Sawhney any bench less than 11 judges cannot decide?
Counsel: Yes.
[Refers to Indira Sawhney]
#EWS #SupremeCourt

Counsel: Indira Sawhney says that Art 16(4) is not an exception to 16(1) but it is an implicit way to test the Equality principle under 16(1).
CJI: It was in the context of OM. Now you will have to alleviate the matter.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: This bench may not be an adequate bench to test it. Art 16(6) will be another reason for classification. Indira Sawhney also laid down limit for 50% limit.
CJI: Suppose we accept Mr. Sankarnarayanan, 50% is not getting breached.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: He says that if we subsume the 10% in the 50%, it won't get violated. So we come back to same scenario argued by Dr. Gopal.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel concludes his arguments.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel intervening for All India OBC Students' association: I will start with an example. The question is being raised on generationally poor. There may be a person who may have land etc and still may get that.
CJI: We're not going into what parameters must be set.
#EWS

CJI: Argue on a conceptual plane. Don't get into these ideas- what exactly is the limit etc.
J Bhat: Don't look at the margins, go down at the marginalized.
If we look at tribes, who have seen any development, equally there are families who haven't seen anything.
#EWS

J Bhat: We don't know the Sociology of that. Generations are kept out- you can't get into institutions, you need money.
CJI: What is your submission?
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: You're arguing the same thing. If you have a submission which haven't been advanced, we're willing to hear but please don't repeat.
Counsel: Please see Indira Sawhney.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: What was the need of 16(6) at all? The identification could have been made in 16(4) itself. Then what is the special case scenario and why 10% extra. Then coming to the amendment, Mr. Shadan had raised the "other than".
CJI: Please don't repeat.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: Intervenors are not even allowed in oral arguments. They're allowed for written submissions. So keep your arguments the shortest possible.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: Categories reiterated in 16(6)- if it is to be interpreted in "other than", it is horizontal category.
If it was "this category", it'd be different, but it is each category.
CJI: So you're saying that let this amendment be but make is horizontal and apply to all SEBCs.

Counsel: And if it is within 50% it's reasonable.
Counsel concludes.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Another intervenor starts his submissions.
Counsel: Right to equality and the right to democratic form of government is basic structure. Reservation is required because representation is required for all.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: In MP, only 13% OBCs are working...no adequate representation.
[Counsel provides more data on working SCs/STs and OBCs]
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: Thank you sir.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: who is the beneficiaries of 103rd amendment? They're overrepresented.
CJI: All this has been argued already.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: In higher judiciary, no reservations, no representation. This is the situation.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Another intervenor cites Minerva Mills Judgement to state that Art 14 is an elementary right and the legislature cannot pick and choose.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: Part IV cannot be used to destroy Part III.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel for petitioner in a transfer case of Madras HC: First submission is under Art 368.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: The ceiling limit of 50% shall not be overreached. This will make it 60%. This categorisation of only one group will deprive others of their constitutional guarantees.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Counsel: Under 368, the power is limited and not unlimited. Parliament shall not have opportunity to amend which wasn't originally envisioned.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG Venugopal (for respondents): First, the addition of 10% to the general category for the benefit of the EWS would exceed the 50% limit and that is not accepted by this court except in exceptional circumstances. This violates basic structure.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: SEBCs are placed as against general category. Between the two, denial to one violates Art 14 of the Constitution. It is discriminatory.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG Venugopal reads out Article 15.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: 15(6) and 16(6) have been added.
[Reads Art 15(6)]
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: What one would find is that by the Constitution 1st amendment and then by 93rd amendment and now 103rd amendment, you have series of enabling provisions for weaker sections of the society. These are affirmative actions.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: We have three categories - SC/ST/OBC. Each one of them are self contained sections of backwardness. So far they are concerned, they've also called themselves EWS. Similarly, we have forward section of general categories which also has weaker sections.
#EWS #SupremeCourt

AG: So far as complain is concerned that we are not given same benefits, why are you using words "other than"... they're distinct from those in 15(6) and 16(6).
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: In the normal course, unless they show that this amendment has affected them directly, it will not be accepted.
Among the general category there is a section which is grossly poor, that is, EWS.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: Why is this 50% being fixed? The reason is that if you exceed this 50%, the result will be that the general category will be restricted more and more. In Tamil Nadu, 69% is the total category. So now general category, which has a large population gets less.
#EWS

CJI: Those EWS categories must be represented in all sections. Do you have any data that shows that EWS in open category, how much will be their percentage?
AG: 18.2% of the total population
CJI: You're basing your conclusions on Sinho commission?
AG: Yes
#EWS #SupremeCourt

AG refers to Niti aayog report for multidimensional poverty index.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: So far as numbers are concerned, it would be about 350 million of the population.
J Bhat: Which census is this? 2001 or 2011.
AG: 2011
J Bhat: so after that what is the progress? This is just an estimate.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: So far as Niti aayog is concerned, I don't believe they'll exaggerate poverty level.
This 350 million is approximate. So we have all the poor in all four segments- SC/ST/OBC/General. What is the effect of 10% being there?
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: It doesn't affect 50% because the 50% was there only for balance. Suppose they decided that we'll give 60-70-80%? The effect would then be that meritorious people will be deprived from seats in institutions and jobs.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG refers to Balaji judgement.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: I would now conclude that there exists two compartments so far as reservations are concerned. One is backward classes, which is limited to 50%. The other is a class which is also 50%- that is general category.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: The benefit given so far as general category is concerned, they're saying why are you giving them? Though they're weaker...
So far as 50% of backward classes are concerned, you cannot make it into excessive reservation.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: So far as general category is concerned, among them the poor are getting this.
Bench discusses.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: This reservation is a new evolution, totally independent of reservations for ST/SC/OBCs. It doesn't erode their rights. This is independent of the 50%. The question of its exceeding the limit of 50% and hence violating the basic structure doesn't arise
#EWS #SupremeCourt

AG: Equals may be treated unequally. Unless you put forward ground of discrimination & violation of A 14 on the ground that the EWS in 15(4) category is similar to EWS in the general category, the question of any special benefit being given to EWS in general category cannot arise

AG: They're now seeking further reservations in the reservations already given. The question is whether this is permissible. Further question is are they equal in all relevant aspects?
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: Are they equal in all aspects to the EWS in general category? The question of discrimination will arise between two classes that are similarly placed.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: Look at the benefits that SC/STs are given. [Refers to his compilation]
Article 16(4)(a) shows that SCs and STs are being given a special provision by way of promotion. 243(d)- reservation in panchayat...in municipalities; 330 in House of people.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: 332, reservation in legislative assembly. If all these benefits are given by way of fact that they're backward then would they give up on this for the purpose of claiming equality?
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: EWS have been given this for the first time. On the other hand, so far as the SCs and STs are concerned, they've been loaded with benefits by way of affirmative actions. They're highly unequal, in tremendous position so far as reservations are concerned.
#EWS #SupremeCourt

AG: EWS cannot be segregated from a homogeneous group.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: They have far additional advantage given to them because of their status as backward classes. They're therefore not equal to general category.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: They're one homogeneous group which cannot be divided into EWS and rest.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

AG: Coming to OBCs...
CJI: Mr. Attorney please give us two mins.
Bench discusses.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

CJI: Mr. Attorney, there is something very urgent so we will have to rise today. Nothing serious, but there is something we have to attend so we will rise. We will resume tomorrow.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Bench rises for the day. Hearing to resume tomorrow.
#EWS #SupremeCourtOfIndia

Categories

More from this author

Related Threads

Popular Threads

Categories

More from this author

Related Threads

Popular Threads

Unroll Thread