AG cites the judgement of Ashok Kumar Thakur.
Bench discusses.
AG: "The basic structure is to be taken as a larger thing..."
AG refers to judgements on basic structure violations.
AG: In that judgement, HC accepted the argument that govt is justified showing reports that there are different categories amongst SCs who get different rights. Chinnaya asked SC to reverse that.
AG: Each one of them has a backwardness, from top to bottom, are you going to slice up creamy layer from all these categories and then slice up another for EWS? We have a judgement in Chinnaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
AG: Three categories of SEBCs constitute a homogeneous group. Are you going to ask for reservation, in addition to reservation already given? A reservation in a reservation? That is not contemplated.
AG: If they say 10% in non reserved category should be more divided into 2.5% each, that's not justified.
AG: In Secy v. State of Karnataka, it was held that equality of opportunity was hallmark to ensure that unequals are not treated as equals. Therefore, the complaint that they have to be given same benefits is not justified.
AG refers to judgements to further his submissions.