AG expresses gratitude to his juniors.
AG: It is on account of an elaborate report prepared by Mr. Sinho and he did it after going to every state and looking at the condition of the poor of the non reserved class. He then made the report.
AG: There is no violation of the basic structure. "At present EWS have remained excluded from higher education due to their financial capacity."- [AG reads from the Statement of Objects and Purpose]
AG: You asked what was the basis of the report of 25.1% being total poor? It is based on 2011 census.
AG: My submission is that if they are given 10%, it would be the 10-10-10 would be 80% and would certainly violate all judgements.
AG: If not, backward classes being homogeneous group, one cannot have reservation in a reservation.
CJI: How long will you take?
AG: I'll take 5 mins.
CJI: Very well. We'll continue after lunch at 2 pm.
AG: This 10% falls into a different compartment than the 50% given to backward classes who will not be hurt by this 10%. If this 10% is taken in addition to 50%, it's an extraordinary situation.
AG: Equally, if it is accepted that economical criteria can be sole criteria for reservations, they cannot complain.
This is supported by many judgements.
AG: It's the duty of the state to lift them up out of poverty. If this be shot, in such a case, the question is whether the 40% can complained? Now the entire 50% of non reserved could have complained when the other 50% got reservations.
AG: To recap, the first question is that 10% benefit given to EWS in non reserved category violates A 14 in relation to EWS in three backward classes. The answer to that was that the 3 backward classes was 50% and that cannot be exceeded except in exceptional circumstances.