The petitions have challenged the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which provides 10% reservation to the economically weaker sections of the society.
The petitions have challenged the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which provides 10% reservation to the economically weaker sections of the society.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit is scheduled to pronounce judgment on November 7 challenging the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides for 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions. ‘Economically Weaker Sections’ [EWS] of society But excludes the ‘poorest of the poor’ from among the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
Other judges on the bench include Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice JB Pardiwala.
November 7 is the last working day of Chief Justice Lalit.
On September 27, the Constitution Bench had heard lengthy arguments for seven days before reserving the matter for decision.
important issues
Important issues that could be addressed in the decision include whether the EWS quota violated the basic structure of the Constitution; Whether reservation was contrary to the Equality Code to treat all equally without any discrimination; And more importantly, if reservation ate away the future prospects of merit-based candidates.
The government stated that the 10% quota was not in addition to the 50% limit on reservation. It said the EWS quota was an “independent compartment”. The court had repeatedly asked the government during the hearing whether the EWS quota would take a piece of the pie from the 50% available non-reserved or open category who compete purely on merit. The court had also questioned the exclusion of backward classes from reservation.
The government has said that it will increase the seats in its institutions by 25% to accommodate the EWS quota.
Dr. Mohan Gopal in his reply had said that this is the first time that being a member of the upper castes has been made a pre-requisite for getting government assistance.
Advocate Kaliswaram Raj submitted that fundamental rights are individualistic and the government’s justification for excluding SC, ST and OBC is on the ground that they are already availing 50% quota, there is no water.
Senior advocate P. Wilson had asked whether upliftment was possible through reservation. He said that reservation is not a poverty alleviation scheme.
Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh argued that reservation based only on economic criteria cannot be upheld in the Constitution.
Advocate VK Biju, while supporting the reservation, said that the amendment was passed in a democratic manner and not a fraud with the Constitution. He said that it is a step towards casteless society.