Justice Bhat: Provision in RTE defines, it's inclusive. It was noted in Pramati.
Kumar: Yes, they can never be excluded from EWS.
Kumar: "Whatever law the State makes"- whatever law the State makes will be in consonance with FRs. But EWS is an inclusive definition- it includes SC/ST/SEBCs.
Kumar: One of the justification given is that EWS has already been upheld in the right to education. Kindly permit me to show from Art 21A. Under Art 13, any law which violates FRs will be invalid.
[Reads 21A]
Kumar: Devendra Singh says that
creamy layer may be eliminated from SC. In express words, they have said that it's not a homogeneous group.
CJI: It's a referral order.
Kumar: Yes, but opinion is given.
Kumar: So far as SCs are concerned, in 1965, a committee was appointed and it recognised that it was not a homogeneous group. In the latest case of Devendra Singh, 2020 2 SCC
J Bhat: The issue has been referred to 7 judge bench.
Kumar: Yes, thus the argument may not be valid.
Kumar: The AG said that SC/ST/SEBCs are homogeneous classes. With due respect, so far as OBCs are concerned, Indra Sawhney has permitted categorisation. So it's not a homogeneous group.
Kumar refers to judgements: "Such decisions should not hijack the faith of social justice..."
Kumar: What has poverty got to do with IAS/IPS posts? Higher education? This is known as reverse discrimination. They want to extend reservations to everyone - whether needed or not. This has been held as an unconstitutional exercise.
Kumar: Till this time, the Learned AG or others, none have provided the nexus between reservation and poverty. Why should reservations be given? Why not other measures?
Kumar: This was talked about the court in Champakam and Venkatraman. So this has to be struck down.