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

AP: 16(4) used the word backward class, not classes.

J Bhat: It is backward class of citizens. It becomes plural automatically.

AP: The original interpretation doctrine or schematic doctrine would apply.

AP: This was very much needed at that time. In that situation 15(4) was introduced. Nagaraj speaks of schematic interpretation. Indra Sawhney was on social backwardness and opportunity.

AP: Second, is the economic criteria submission. Indra Sawhney judgement dealt with 16(4) and subsequent judgements said that same principles would apply to 15(4). 16(4) was rooted in historical injustice.

Counsel for State of Andhra Pradesh commences his arguments.

AP: On basic structure argument, reservations beat entitlement thereto or exclusion therefrom, cannot be part of basic structure because it is just one of the ways to ensure equality. Reservation is temporal.

Agarwal: There has been many amendments but this court has only intervened in it 6 times. So we have to contextualise.

Agarwal: Social justice in this country cannot just mean representation or equality in the matters of caste.

CJI: Look at the constitutional history, at no stage a community which is supposed to be forward, it might have been discriminated against but it has never been discriminated in favour.

J Bhat: For you it is incidental, for him, it's a direct violation.

Agarwal: The distinction is that there are zones of affirmative actions. The zone for SC/STs- apart from reservations in admissions, get reservations in promotion, parliament etc

Agarwal: If this carve out of pre existing reservations is considered caste based then the converse has to also be true. Also, it is incidental in nature.

J Bhat: You can't say these kind of arguments are incidental.