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

Makhija: Migration is permissible as per the Act. My submission is that this equalises. Since these vacancies are not been carried forward, it operates as a horizontal reservations and not vertical reservations.

Sr. Adv. Makhija refers to UP Public Services (Reservations for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2020.

Justice Maheshwari: You're saying that OBCs are already in a good position and you, EWS who are struggling are not getting any benefits.

Makhija: Yes. 

Makhija: The persons who were extremely poor, if they weren't belonging to reserved category, these persons could not access it from any direction. Thus, they couldn't study enough.

J Bhat: They've already reached that level and then they're competing.

J Bhat: Gross figures can tell different tales, it depends on how we look at it.

CJI: As against 34,000, only unreserved categories could walk away with 20,000. So the difference is 14,000 and out of these 12,000 have been taken by OBC because they're more meritorious.

So far as the forward communities are considered, they've shown lack of merit. 

Sr. Adv. Makhija: Who is most aggrieved with this amendment? Those who are already taking benefits of the reservations.

Documents submitted to the bench relate to UP Constables and Shikshamitra.

Makhija: If the benefits of EWS were granted, I would have been there.

CJI: That someone will always say. We want to know which is the last person to get the EWS?

Sr. Adv. Vibha Dutta Makhija provides the bench with documents to show benefits of EWS.

Counsel: Practically, it's not possible to create equality on basis of equity, on basis of numbers. Substantive equality is workable in which numbers are factored on basis of disadvantage.

CJI: Is that all Ms. Makhija?