From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Centre on Tuesday told the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that 10% reservation to the economically weaker sections (EWS) among the general category of population is an “affirmative action” and it is distinct from up to 50% reservation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes.
It said the EWS quota brought through 103rd Constitution amendment does not impinge upon the reservation granted to SCs, STs and OBCs and therefore it should not be treated as exceeding maximum 50% reservation fixed for them.
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal told a constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala that the 103rd amendment was aimed to benefit nearly 18 crore of the economically weaker segment of population falling under the general category. His submissions remained inconclusive and will continue on Wednesday.
While the Sinha Commission has put the EWS number at about 18 crores, the Niti Aayog’s multidimensional poverty index puts it at 25.1 crores, Venugopal said.
Countering the arguments of the petitioners opposing the EWS reservation that it is beyond the 50% cap on the reservation imposed by the top court by its 1992 judgment in Indra Sawhney case, Attorney General the cap of 50% was for SC/ST and the OBCs reservation who formed a homogeneous group. He said that SC/ST & OBC and EWS among general category are two distinct compartments.
The Attorney General emphasised that 10% EWS reservation is within the 50% space left out for the general category and should not be clubbed with existing 50% reservation for SC/ST and the OBCs.
Adverting to the argument that the EWS reservation was discriminatory as it does not extend to similarly placed economically weaker categories in SC/ST and the OBCs, Attorney General Venugopal said their’s (SC/ST & OBC) is a self-contained reservation that also includes economically weaker segments among them. He said they drive “far additional advantages” besides the reservation in educational institutions and public jobs.
Making a distinction between the reservation for SC/ST and the OBC on one hand and the EWS on the other, the Attorney General said that EWS reservation is not an extension of the SC/ST reservation but a distinct category that has evolved over a period of time.
Beside Attorney General Venugopal, the daylong hearing on the fourth day saw petitioner ‘Youth for Equality’ supporting EWS reservation but opposing it being carved out of the remaining 50% for the general category seats. It said that it was violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade appearing for Tamil Nadu government which is opposing the EWS reservation argued that the economic criteria in itself cannot be a classification for grant of reservation and if economic weakness was to be accepted as a basis of reservation, then it would require revisiting 1992 nine-judge bench ruling in the Indra Sawhney case.
Telling the constitution bench that the crux of the matter for the consideration of the court is whether we can think of reservation for the upper castes. Nephade said this would lead to a new understanding of the equality under Article 14 of the constitution which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and in such a situation it would require revisiting the top court’s 1973 judgment in the Kesavananda Bharti case.
In the course of the hearing, Chief Justice Lalit said the court was not adjudicating on the parameters for the grant of the EWS reservation, but on the concept of the legal, and constitutional footings of reservation based on economic basis.
The CJI said this as a lawyer urged the court whether a person having an income of Rs. 50,000/- a month, or four acres of agricultural land or 1000 square yard of plot in urban areas could be treated hailing from an economically weaker background.
