EWS Reservation- Supreme Court Constitution Bench Hearing DAY 3- LIVE UPDATES

Kapur: Reservations have nothing to do with poverty alleviation but for representation. The entire equality code rests on this- that reservations is for participation and representation.

Adv Diya Kapur (for petitioners): I've made a short note on my arguments and historical background of 15 and 16. I'll start with equality being a part of basic structure.

Farasat: I will conclude with one quote from K.C. Vasantkumar- "Any view of class system...the lower the caste, the poorer it's members"

J Bhat: If you start using basic structure to interpret constitution...

Farasat: Then in that case it would be struck down.

Farasat refers to the judgement Delhi v. UOI: even if it was intent of parliament to only give it to forward class, that intent will have to give way to basic feature.

J Bhat: This is very general. As CJ Chandrachud Sr. said you can't use this to test the legislature.

Farasat: In this case, the exclusion has to either go or there is a possibility to read it down.

Farasat: Allow me to read from the judgement [Delhi v. UOI]

If you're faced with two interpretations- one which will destroy basic feature and one which will enhance basic feature subject to caveat that text can bear it.

Hearing resumes.

Farasat: I will attempt to answer J Bhat's answer. The reason why there can be EWS and can be forward class can be there is because they're economically weaker, not because they're forward caste.

J Bhat: ...covered in this. If you go by that, poorest of poor who may not have made it there, then get this. Is that what was intended?

Bench rises. Proceedings to continue at 2 pm. Adv. Farasat to answer bench's queries at 2 pm.

J Bhat: If we accept your argument, maximum mass of the people who would be eligible for this would be SC/ST/OBCs. This extra 10% goes to reserved categories only. Is that the purpose? On the basis of your arguments, or Sinoh Commission Report, max no. of OBCs would be then...