NEW DELHI: Contending that granting reservation to solely the poor from the overall class and holding these from SCs/STs/OBCs/SEBCs out of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota is just not discriminatory, the Centre on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court docket that the reserved lessons are at an “advantageous place” compared to the overall class in getting reservation and the poor folks from these lessons can’t be handled equally with these belonging to the unreserved class.
Showing earlier than a structure bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and J B Pardiwala, lawyer common Okay Okay Venugopal initiated the arguments on behalf of the Centre and submitted that granting 10 % EWS quota would additionally not quantity to violation of the apex court docket’s earlier judgement on fixing a ceiling of fifty%.
He elaborated that the Indra Sawhney judgement on ceiling on reservation was meant to make sure that folks from the overall class aren’t denied alternative they usually should get 50% seats in jobs and academic establishments. He mentioned the EWS quota is just not violative of that precept as folks from common class would proceed to have 50% and the poor from that class would get the reservation.
“Discrimination arises when two lessons are equally positioned. Have a look at the advantages that SCs/STs/ OBCs have been granted. The reservations had been rightly given to them for being on the sidelines for hundreds of years. EWS has been given this for the primary time. However, as far as the SCs and STs are involved, they’ve been loaded with advantages by means of affirmative actions. They’re at an advantageous place so far as reservation is worried and they don’t seem to be equal to EWS from the overall class,” Venugopal mentioned.
He mentioned the 103rd structure modification, making provision for EWS quota, didn’t disturb the prevailing reservation for different lessons and they need to not complain about quota granted to the poor part from the overall class. He mentioned that 18.2% of the inhabitants from the overall lessons are under the poverty line they usually additionally deserved preferential therapy.
“The judgment in Indra Sawhney can’t be invoked, as the problems there, handled the scope and content material of reservations contained in Article 15(4) and Article 15(5) and Article 16(4) and Article 16 (5), which handled a completely completely different class of weaker sections, particularly the socially and educationally backward and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. No query of whether or not the weaker sections of the society had been entitled to the advantage of reservation may come up in that case and if determined can solely be handled as obiter,” he mentioned.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, showing for organisation ‘Youth for Equality’, contended that insertion of EWS is completely legitimate as it’s not primarily based on caste however mentioned quota can’t be granted in breach of fifty% ceiling.
The listening to remained inconclusive and would resume on Wednesday.
Showing earlier than a structure bench of Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and J B Pardiwala, lawyer common Okay Okay Venugopal initiated the arguments on behalf of the Centre and submitted that granting 10 % EWS quota would additionally not quantity to violation of the apex court docket’s earlier judgement on fixing a ceiling of fifty%.
He elaborated that the Indra Sawhney judgement on ceiling on reservation was meant to make sure that folks from the overall class aren’t denied alternative they usually should get 50% seats in jobs and academic establishments. He mentioned the EWS quota is just not violative of that precept as folks from common class would proceed to have 50% and the poor from that class would get the reservation.
“Discrimination arises when two lessons are equally positioned. Have a look at the advantages that SCs/STs/ OBCs have been granted. The reservations had been rightly given to them for being on the sidelines for hundreds of years. EWS has been given this for the primary time. However, as far as the SCs and STs are involved, they’ve been loaded with advantages by means of affirmative actions. They’re at an advantageous place so far as reservation is worried and they don’t seem to be equal to EWS from the overall class,” Venugopal mentioned.
He mentioned the 103rd structure modification, making provision for EWS quota, didn’t disturb the prevailing reservation for different lessons and they need to not complain about quota granted to the poor part from the overall class. He mentioned that 18.2% of the inhabitants from the overall lessons are under the poverty line they usually additionally deserved preferential therapy.
“The judgment in Indra Sawhney can’t be invoked, as the problems there, handled the scope and content material of reservations contained in Article 15(4) and Article 15(5) and Article 16(4) and Article 16 (5), which handled a completely completely different class of weaker sections, particularly the socially and educationally backward and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. No query of whether or not the weaker sections of the society had been entitled to the advantage of reservation may come up in that case and if determined can solely be handled as obiter,” he mentioned.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, showing for organisation ‘Youth for Equality’, contended that insertion of EWS is completely legitimate as it’s not primarily based on caste however mentioned quota can’t be granted in breach of fifty% ceiling.
The listening to remained inconclusive and would resume on Wednesday.
