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

SG: You equalise them with others. That is justice, economically and expected in the preamble.

SG: We have broadly 50% of reservations, 50% of non reservation. The 10% are again general category, open category students. In civil services, more than 50% are below yearly income of 2.5 Lakh, per family is 25000. This is where substantive equality comes.

J Bhat: Effect of horizontal reservations has not been studied after Indra Sawhney.

SG: Therefore, 10% ceiling.

SG: If the parliament in its wisdom does that, would that itself be a ground to declare it constitutionally invalid.

J Bhat: I'm not saying parliament says it's incorrect. When you enhance equality for those sections, this is to give representation, no other reason, to empower...

J Bhat: One part goes in the reserved category and stacks up.

It is intersecting to reserved category but no intersection in unreserved category. It stacks up. 

SG: Adequate representation is not the only reason for reservation. For eg. in many states there is reservation for physically disabled, there is no reason of representation.

J Bhat: The idea there is enablement.

SG: Yes, enablement but not representation.

SG: My submission is that amendment treats poor people as a class. It's flexible and cannot violate basic structure.

SG: Petitioners have to show an absolute prohibition of economic criteria in equality code. If they can show this, this amendment violates basic structure. And they have to show that 50% is inviolable.

SG: Basic structure comprises of many features like the legs of the chair. The petitioners have to establish that encurring of affirmative action on economic criteria amounts to egregious violation of basic structure.

J Bhat: It now transcended. Now you have to look into the content. Basic structure theory itself is ever evolving.

SG: Of course, otherwise the constitution would never develop. Like RTE, if it was not introduced, constitution would never develop.