Maratha Reservation: Supreme Court Constitution Bench Hearing- Live Updates [Day-2]

Sankaranarayanan: This was probably why they gave directions to the Centre as well as the State.

Bench: We don’t want to go into assumptions. We want to know what happened exactly. 

Sankaranarayanan: It had been stated that there must be inadequacy in representation in the eyes of the government, and efficiency in services must be maintained. This was probably in the minds of the Court before it delved into the issues in Indra Sawhney. 

Sankaranarayanan: The reasoning for the reference to 9-Judges in Indra Sawhney was for the consideration of reservation of all kinds. I’m mentioning this because one of the critical observations in Indra Sawhney was lack of definition of backward classes.

Sankaranarayanan: In the 30 years since the directions have come up in Indra Sawhney, while the majority says there is a distinction between the Articles 15 and 16 classes, if you look at the Lists, there doesn’t seem to be any distinction. 

Sankaranarayanan reads out the 1985 case of KC Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka wherein then CJI YV Chandrachud had noted that reservations had continued for 40 years and could continue for another 15 years.

Sankaranarayanan: When the Constitution was enacted in 1950, there was reservation only for SC/ST and Anglo-Indians. Reservation for SC/ST has been continued every 5 years. 

Sr. Adv. Gopal Sankaranarayanan commences his submissions. He states that he will first lay down the coming up of the 102nd Amendment, right from Indra Sawhney, then he will address whether Indra Sawhney needs to be revisited, and then he will answer queries posed by the Bench.

Justice Bhushan: There is an alternative way of looking at things. The Centre may formulate principles for adding to the "Central List", while the State has to adhere to these principles for identifying its list.

Divan concludes his submissions that he believes the vires of the Constitutional amendments itself are not under question and that the Court is going down the correct path in assessing the issue. 

Justice Bhat: If this was the position, what was the need for amending the Constitution ? Things could have stayed the way we are. The only difference was that the President’s power was absolute. Why go through this exercise of giving power to the Centre ?

Divan: My position is that as far as State Lists are concerned, for removal or modification of backward classes, that remains with the State Legislature because of sub-article (2).

Justice Rao: Any reservation stemming from the Constitution is only confined to classes notified.

Divan: There is a purpose for identification for adding to a certain list. That process now going forward is denuded because we have a Constitutional mandate. But, State Legislatures do continue to enjoy a certain power to add or delete from their list.

Bench: Why is “Central List" used in Article 342A when it is not used in 341 and 342 ? What happens to the lists prepared by States earlier ? Will they continue to get reservations in the States ?

Divan now reads out the procedure.