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

CJI: So when you say no reservations, anyone can compete.

CJI: Hypothetical question. Suppose you say that these categories which have been provided for by way of reservation, so you say tomorrow open categories are only for those not belonging to any category. Then? You're saying the same. Champakam Dorairajan didn't accept this idea.

J Bhat: This is a guardrail. Without it, you cannot have.

Reddy: I'm saying that reservations by very nature are exclusionary. So in same way continuing theme is that in EWS, vertical column is being created, whoever is being provisioned for will be kept out of vertical column.

Reddy: If their argument is accepted, in addition to all castes in SEBCs list, SC/ST must also be there because they're backward, but they're not.

J Bhat: This basic argument would have floated before when 15(4) was introduced 50 years ago.

J Bhat: In each category it was being done like that. Might have gone unchallenged. Therefore I don't know if as a matter of argument this can be taken.

Reddy: Every SC/ST being most deprived, they were able to compete in open category. But the moment OBC reservation came - 27%, they couldn't compete.

J Bhat: There was no case law that they were allowed to compete. All this came later.

Reddy: When it comes to vertical reservation, the contention that we're keeping out is already provisioned class. 16(4) only uses the expression backward class which takes within it's fold SC/STs and backward classes.

J Bhat: The opportunity cost is not to be seen at a collective level but at a level where each vacancy arises.

J Bhat: It is easy to argue in these four walls that this is an opportunity cost. But for a person in ground level...even in college admissions, seniority etc.

You have to visualise all this.