Supreme Court Live Updates - SC/ST Reservation Subclassification : 7-Judge Bench Hearing [Day 2]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
7 Feb 2024 10:16 AM IST
Live Updates
- 7 Feb 2024 3:11 PM IST
Nafde concludes. Sr Advocate Nidhesh Gupta makes his brief submissions
Gupta : 4 reasons why Chinnaiah is contrary to the constitutional scheme. 1. constitution uses the expression SC/ST/SEBC in articles 15, partly 16(4), 46, 164, 243, 342,344,345,338E and 338B. etc it is only in 16(4) that uses backward classes...therefore the intent of the constitutional framers was that backward classes under 16(4) is a category where there are all at par (Indira Sahwney says backward classes included SC/ST/OBCs together)
- 7 Feb 2024 3:03 PM IST
Nafde : fourth submission. The court has read into article 341 that it prohibits subclassification .
CJI : I am not sure if we should go there because 341 will not permit the states to make a subclassification, if the UOI makes subclassification acting through an act of parliament it is permissible . The point really is that actual implementation of reservation under article 15(4) and 16(4) stands in a different sphere as compared to the work of designation which is exclusively under article 341
nafde : legislative competence is divided into two part- identification of SCs- 341 exclusive parliament; whether to grant benefit you come to state
Gavai J: but everyone has argued the same thing.
- 7 Feb 2024 2:56 PM IST
Nafde : second submission is, the court is adding words to article 341 which do not exist in it. the court is adding words. and the last limb with the CJI mentioned....this reason according to me runs counter to the concept of classification. Now it is a settled law that SCs are also a class and 15(4) and 16(4) deal with also class. In Chinnaiah case there was report of Justice Raju who collected imperial data...on the basis of which the classification was made into A,B,C, and D. Now this classification of the SC must also pass the test of classification with lordships have laid down - intelligible differential, nexus to the object , if these two tests are satisfied where is the question of going into subclassification and say it is violative of 14. .... the court has not taken to account imperical data, no factual foundation, the court has not applied the test of article 14
Gavai J : if the court comes to the conclusion, where is the question of going into imperical data
Nafde : per say it is violative of 14, this is where the difference starts. for classification of OBC as in indira sahwney, what is the test they apply? same test of 14