AG: Unfortunately, castes are homogeneous groups through which runs the thread of backwardness. So far as rest are concerned, they don't have any reservations. It consists of Hindus, jains, parsis, muslims etc. They aren't homogeneous, merit based selected.
AG: You see the word general category and see it as unreserved category.
CJI: What is being argued is that when you say General Category it means, everything should go purely by merit. In that 50% open category, you may as well have 20% who come from reserved category. Their submissions are you're reducing the cake which is for the general category.
AG: "This means that reservations should be in permissible limits...at the same time clause 4 of 16 does not place any limits on government...this cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula to be adhered to"
AG reads from the M.N. Thomas Judgement.
AG: In this context, I will read from State of Kerala v. M.N. Thomas, para 191.
AG: They have 40% and there is nothing on record that says that the 40% should be 50%. The question is if the reservation in EWS is violative. This is perfectly valid and supported by 46A, DPSPs.
AG: As I said, I didn't hear any stride and complaint. So many judgements say that economic criteria can be the sole criteria for affirmative action.
AG: OBCs will be in an advantageous position as the creamy layer has been skimmed off. But qualitatively, the purpose for EWS was not to touch the 50% reservation.
Bench discusses.
AG: The question is if this 10% reservation in regard to general category addition to 50%? I say no.
CJI: For OBCs in creamy layer, they are open general category. Now it will get reduced to 40% is the complaint. Is it your submission that they can also compete in open category? They cannot.
AG: So far as the SC/ST/OBC are concerned, they're in 50%. The balance is 50%.