Supreme Court Live Updates - SC/ST Reservation Subclassification : 7-Judge Bench Hearing [Day 2]

Hearings for the day are concluded. The remaining arguments will be heard tomorrow

Sr Adv Murlidhar appearing for Andhra Pradesh mentions that the state no longer continues with subclassification after Chinnaiah decision as far as reservations are concerned and will abide by the judgement of this court which will be delivered

Sr Adv Sidarth Luthra appearing for State of Telengana addresses the issue of Madigah community which constitutes as 70% of the population among backward classes but only gets 20% of seats.

Other interveners make their short submissions

Advocate Shraddha Deshmukh makes short submissions on the issues with Chinnaiah's judgement as intervener

Gupta takes the bench to his written submissions

Gupta concludes. Sr Adv Dama Seshadri Naidu makes short submissions

Naidu submitted that the Arunthatiyas are treated as untouchables within the SCs

Trivedi J : what was the reason of specifically mentioning all these 3 (SC/ST/OBC) in 15(4)?

Gupta : the word 'any' is qualifying only SC /ST, any is in 15(4) not preceding the words SC/STs  

Nafde concludes. Sr Advocate Nidhesh Gupta makes his brief submissions

Gupta : 4 reasons why Chinnaiah is contrary to the constitutional scheme. 1. constitution uses the expression SC/ST/SEBC in articles 15, partly 16(4), 46, 164, 243, 342,344,345,338E and 338B. etc it is only in 16(4) that uses backward classes...therefore the intent of the constitutional framers was that backward classes under 16(4) is a category where there are all at par (Indira Sahwney says backward classes included SC/ST/OBCs together)

Nafde : fourth submission. The court has read into article 341 that it prohibits subclassification .

CJI : I am not sure if we should go there because 341 will not permit the states to make a subclassification, if the UOI makes subclassification acting through an act of parliament it is permissible . The point really is that actual implementation of reservation under article 15(4) and 16(4) stands in a different sphere as compared to the work of designation which is exclusively under article 341

nafde : legislative competence is divided into two part- identification of SCs- 341 exclusive parliament; whether to grant benefit you come to state

Gavai J: but everyone has argued the same thing. 

Nafde : second submission is, the court is adding words to article 341 which do not exist in it. the court is adding words. and the last limb with the CJI mentioned....this reason according to me runs counter to the concept of classification. Now it is a settled law that SCs are also a class and 15(4) and 16(4) deal with also class. In Chinnaiah case there was report of Justice Raju who collected imperial data...on the basis of which the classification was made into A,B,C, and D. Now this classification of the SC must also pass the test of classification with lordships have laid down - intelligible differential, nexus to the object , if these two tests are satisfied where is the question of going into subclassification and say it is violative of 14. .... the court has not taken to account imperical data, no factual foundation, the court has not applied the test of article 14

Gavai J : if the court comes to the conclusion, where is the question of going into imperical data

Nafde : per say it is violative of 14, this is where the difference starts. for classification of OBC as in indira sahwney, what is the test they apply? same test of 14