EWS Quota Case Hearing Day 6 - Live Updates From Supreme Court

CJI: Why are you creating EWS in GC? Premise is that they're economically weaker sections, their opportunities are limited. When it comes to SC/ST, those coming from that vertical column, there are people who have opportunities and advantages as opposed to those at lower level.

SG: Because then the EWS GC will get nothing.

J Bhat: You're an SC ST of a particular state so you have a right. The moment you move out, your choice to move out debars you from claiming the SC/ST status. There it is an individual choice. Here, there is no choice.

SG: Those who were getting 27% will be taking from 10%.

J Bhat: We understand that. We're looking at the impact on equality.

SG: Constitutional amendment shall not be tested on statistics. 

J Bhat: I am not looking at totality. I am looking at the individual. The constitution has to have meaning to an individual. Argument of collective goes on but it breaks down at individuals.

J Bhat: Is it right for egalitarian govt to say that sorry you're poorest of poor but you've exhausted your reservation.

J Bhat: The stats given are that along the poorest of poor, the STs- 48% of them, constitute the poorest of poor. They're poor plus marginalized. There will be a large section which will be kept out because the share of the pie is limited.

SG: If (6) applied to (5), then it will be asked for (5) to also apply to (4).

SG: SC/STs being more backward, there is a seperate compartment for them. If SC/STs are asked to share seats with SEBCs, this is not how reservation works. The only way is to create a third compartment- based on economic criteria.

SG: If the argument of petitioner in this context is accepted that (6) should apply to (4) and (5) too, to SEBCs, it will make (4) and (5) unworkable.

SG: Their submission ignores that SC/STs and SEBCs in comparison to EWS would atleast be entitled to avail existing reservations. They already have protection. EWS were completely kept outside, despite being weaker sections.

CJI: This is what AG argued