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

CJI: thats the correctness which falls for determination....once notified all the subclasses comprise one single group of SCs and therefore since it is one composite group of SCs, if you get reservation in state you give it to all of them.

Nafde: that is inconsistent with article 15(4) and 16(4). These are enabling provisions . I divide the list of legislative competence intow 2 groups 1. the power to a particular SC under 341 ... 341 is merely a fetter to identify a particular caste as SC and it stops there.

Nafde : article 341 only empowers the president to identify and notify the SCs thereafter the legislative competence of state u/a 246 r/w list 2 and 3 of the 7th schedule get triggered r/w article 15(4) and and 16(4). All these constitutional schemes permits the state to enact the law and lordships are aware that executive power is coextensive with the legislative power. In Balaji the court has held that to make reservation policy it is not necessary to enact a law it can also be done by an executive fiat. Chinnaiah holds that subclassification is inconsistent with article 341. Now the wording of article 341 and the conclusion that the subclassification is inconsistent with article 341, there is not connecting link. 

Nafde: Marx said about a century ago that history to all humans existing in a society is the history of class conflict but in democratic set up we must have an organised legal system which can resolve this conflict and today yourlordhsips sees in several parts of the country there are conflicting interests amongst the SCs/ OBC such as in Maharashtra.

Nafde mentions the legislative hsitory for the present 2009 Reservations Act by TN for Aruntathials

Nafde : the challenge to our law T.N. Special reservation of seats for educational institutions including private education institutions and appointment of posts in services of state.

CJI: once we decide on the correctness of Chinnaiah, there may be other challenges to the validity of the act ...then the law goes out 

The Court resumes

Sr Adv Nakkade appearing for the state of Tamil Nadu begins his submissions 

SG takes the bench on various judicial decisions, including M Nagarajan

SH refers to Jainal Singh Decision, therafter mentions the decision of the court in Jaishree Patel.

SG takes the bench to Ashok Kumar Thakur decision

SG Tushar Mehta makes short submissions

SG : slowly and gradually your lorships have started taking note on the judicial side that their has to be some rationing. It is not my submission on reservation, my written submissions are only confined to whether subclassifications can be done 

Venugopal concludes. AG R Venkataramani makes his submissions

AG reads from his submissions 

Venugopal refers to the investigative report of Justice Ramachandra Raju which formed the basis of subcategorisation which found vast dissimilarities within 61 subclasses

Venugopal now refers to his written submissions

refering to yesterdays discussion on the creamy layer and how decision in Jarnail Singh identifies creamy layer as excluded from SC/ST, Gopal S : in practice on the ground there has been no office memorandum that I know or the state may assist which they have issued for the creamy layer removal among SC/ST, they have one old 1992 OM which removed creamy layer in OBCs

Gopal S concludes. Sr Adv KK Venugopal makes his submissions

Venugopal : i had appeared before the 5 judged in the Andhra Pradesh HC in Chinnaiah. they had upheld the subcategorisation of 61 SCs into 4 divisions based upon advancement over the years, they had given 7% to the weakest, 6% of the jobs and educational institutions seat to another group and the best and the highest of them 1% -1% this was upheld on the basis that subcategorisation was permissible. Chinnaiah (SC decision) reversed it.