KK Venugopal says that as far as SC and ST are concerned, they have been filled with benefits through positive actions.
KK Venugopal says that as far as SC and ST are concerned, they have been filled with benefits through positive actions.
The 10% quota for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the society does not infringe on the rights of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, Attorney General of India KK Venugopal before a Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India presented. UU Lalit on Tuesday.
For the Centre, Mr Venugopal said that the EWS quota is independent of the already existing 50% reservation for backward classes, i.e. scheduled communities and OBCs.
The top law officer rejected the contention of the petitioners that exclusion of backward classes from the EWS quota was discrimination. “As far as SCs and STs are concerned, they have been filled with benefits through positive actions. As far as reservation is concerned, they are in a tremendous position,” Mr Venugopal said.
For example, the Attorney-General pointed to several articles in the Constitution that provide reservation in promotion to backward classes in panchayats, municipal bodies and legislative bodies.
Mr Venugopal argued that the reservation for backward classes, and now the EWS quota, should be treated by the court as “a single approach of the state for the upliftment of the weaker sections of the society”.
The law officer said that there were Supreme Court judgments in the past which upheld the benefits of the state only on the basis of economic criteria.
Mr Venugopal’s written submissions explained how the apex court stood by the validity of the Children’s Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
“This Court had held that the 2009 Act seeks to remove all obstacles, including financial and psychological barriers, which a child belonging to the weaker section and disadvantaged group faces while seeking admission and hence Article 21 of the Constitution Further, it held that the fixation of seats for children belonging to a specific category, who face financial constraints in terms of access to education, met the criterion of classification in Article 14, Shri Venugopal argued.
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, agreed with the petitioners that economic criteria alone cannot be the basis for reservation.