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

Counsel: If they are fundamental to our values, which are basic human values, not recognised just by our country but are global values, in that case is there is any amendment to include certain categories for betterment, it doesn't go against basic structure.

Counsel: It is constituent power. It is inherent power but with implied limitation so as to not abrogate. So your lordships will draw a line where it abrogates the basic structure.

Counsel for beneficiaries: I am appearing by way of an intervention application for persons who fall under EWS. So I'm beneficiary. I will define what my rights are.

Reddy: If the parliament thinks that it intends to balance sets of competing values, is it so perverse that it'll go to the roots of constitution?

Reddy: Apart from 50% reservation, the Maratha judgement referred to schemes which are provided. And the AG argued that this is the only thing provided for this category.

Reddy: If a family is entitled to one cylinder, they cannot be entitled to a second cylinder. Same for housing.

Reddy: They're excluded to avoid double benefit. 

Reddy: So 10% has to be done.

CJI: We understand. Your logic is that so and so communities are already provided for so therefore they cannot have benefits here.

Reddy: this category, EWS, is something which is reservation for the unreserved category and weaker ones. It's not one group. Within those categories are sections of people who suffer disadvantages. Today, 50% without this provision will lead all them to compete with affluent.

J Bhat: We're still living in a society which sees people as a part of their caste.