Sankaranayanan: Yes and their reason is that something flexible cannot be basic structure.
Sankaranayanan: Even the govt admits that they accept this and their way is to create a 10% compartment.
Justice Maheshwari: If we followed their arguments, they said 50% was not sacrosanct.
Sankaranayanan: SG asked if this 50% violation something so shocking? It is. Nagraj says that 50% is a ceiling limit. In two benches of 5, your lordships have already said that it is a standard.
Sankaranayanan explains a chart he has submitted to the bench.
Bench takes a short break.
J Bhat: One way is of horizontal way. If you were furthering it, present it as vertical.
Sankaranayanan: This is a vertical presentation.
Sankaranayanan: Creating an artificial thing- like compartments- is no argument at all. I'm saying that vertically reserved.
J Bhat: What you're saying as horizontal, may not be feasible.
Justice Maheshwari: Compartmentalization cannot be denied. There are compartments sir. So EWS also as conceived, this is a compartment. What we're saying is that the focus of the debate is whether it hits the basic structure. All these statistics may not be...
Sankaranayanan: The AG said that the additional 10% falls in a separate compartment. In my view, if compartmentalization is permitted, we'll go back to Champakam kind or era. I don't think compartment can be used. This compartment argument will be taken to 90%
CJI: Your submission that 10% is not for forwards alone is a point.
Justice Maheshwari: The point by Mr. Varma is that it's the exclusion out of the 10% which is the problem
Justice Bhat: Interpretation of both of you suggest that it's the other than means