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

J Bhat: There is indeterminability- you call it flexibility but it's indeterminability. You might enact something but the point is that basic controlling provision, EWS, is not capable of control by Constitution.

J Bhat: The Constitution doesn't give any guidelines. When it comes to (5) and (4) the guidelines are clear- social and educational backwardness. When it comes to economic criteria, there is no identification. There are 25 states, they can come up with any criteria.

J Bhat: Any line you draw, in the non reserved category, there would be millions of outliers. Then you'll do it on, you're not poor enough. Yet the line you've drawn is that though they're not earning, they aren't poor enough. Is that intelligible differentia? 

J Bhat: It is not as if these economic criteria people have no identifiers. They also belong to some caste. Therefore, there is a negative connotation - that you shouldn't belong to this caste.

CJI: What you can say is that in that 50% we are trying to give better representation to those who are poor.

J Bhat: What you can't do it in the most backward in SC category, in most backward in OBC you can. When you come to non reserved category...

CJI: Ceiling limit, in Nagaraj, doesn't require it being akin to basic structure

SG: Something which is flexible can never be basic structure. Your lordships will never say that 50% and no more. Some states have 70%. I'm aware of ground reality- general category is affected.

SG: [Refers to Nagaraj] "Views have been expressed that caste should not be determinant of backwardness and the economic criteria should be the sole determinant. As mentioned we are bound by Indra Sawhney."

SG: The SC has referred to the need on economic reservations.

[SG cites M. Nagaraj v. Union of India]

SG: To satisfy your Lordships conscious, what is being done has not been done for the first time. This has always been upheld or indicated in various judgements.

Bench takes a break.