Counsel: The place on the table has to be as much in relation to the proportion to the population. But that is the principle which I'll not advocate at this point, we'll stay at substantive equality.
Counsel: Touching upon the equality principle, there are three kinds of inequalities - formal inequality, substantive inequality and the third is equality based on equity.
Counsel: This amendment has to be tested at it's own level.
Counsel: So even if I have the misfortune of being a son to a drunkard father, can i be deprived from education, access to good education, coaching classes, jobs? Intergenerational is not a limitation, it's one criteria and it cannot be the only criteria.
Counsel: If you have a rational parameter, which is a well defined scientific parameter, can that class be excluded from being empowered? Nobody is taking away the fact that caste is primary factor for backwardness. Here, poverty is the reason and result of backwardness.
Counsel: Does our constitution stop us from dealing with classes on not caste basis? I don't think so. Therefore, carving out of class on rational and manageable data is permitted.
Counsel: However, just because this class doesn't have historical basis, does that take away from it being a class?
Counsel: The caste based reservation is based on fact that poverty is generated due to social and educational backwardness. Because you don't have ability to generate skills required. That historic distinction very much remains.
Counsel: We never recognised physically, mentally handicapped persons, we never recognised sexual autonomy.
Counsel: So going historically only at one point of time, which is when constitution was made, caste was an issue. Today it is not. Reservations have provided empowerment. I will show through statistics.