Arora: Expression weaker section of people is wider than backward classes or SCs and STs...
Arora: Provisions of 46 shall not be confused with 16(4) & should not be confused with backward classes. Purpose of 16(4) is limited and carves out a particular class of people and not individuals from weaker sections. The concept of weaker sections in 46 has no such limitations.
Arora continues reading from the Indira Sawhney judgement. S highlights that the expression weaker sections does not refer to just weaker sections but can be individualistic as well.
Arora quotes from Leo Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
Arora: Just like Tolstoy says, each poor family is poor in it's own way.
J Bhat: So what you're saying is that it is only for backward classes and representation is not proportionate to the population.
Arora: That was the next limb of my arguments.
J Bhat: You take that concentric circle idea. Here you put weaker sections circle, within that circle is OBC and most disadvantaged SC/ST which is the core. So there is a presupposition that they're weaker sections.
Arora reads from Indira Sawhney judgement: "The expression weaker sections is broader than backward classes which is a part of weaker sections...it only includes those classes which are socially backward and whose backwardness is on account of social backwardness.."
Arora: Poverty induced by backwardness is one thing but poverty which can be changed by work is another. So historically if you've been backward because you haven't had access- that is social backwardness leading to poverty.
Arora: But poverty as a result of loss of job, employment, lack of individual efforts or abilities- that was not intended. That can be changed.
Arora: The phrase that is used in 103rd amendment is section and not class. This is indicated that all backward classes are specifically excluded.
J Bhat: Maybe the justification is 46. Justice Sawant's judgement is basis on with Pavitra has taken off.
Bhat J: What is representation? Essentially it is empowerment. Look at 15(3)- for women. Before, the original constitution stopped at just 15(3), when 15(4) was adopted- you needed it by Champakam. The idea in 15(4) and 16 are representational as is 15(3)...
Bhat J: So those who have representation are given it on a permanent basis. Over and above representation. You're ensuring certain minimum representation. Despite the fact that they're already represented.
Arora: How does reservation from EWS differ fundamentally from others in terms of cause and consequence? Let me take cause aspect first.
Arora: First, reservations for EWS does not or even intended to emulate any representation. It does not even intend.