The submission was made before a 5 judge bench comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, SR Bhat, Bela Trivedi & JB Pardiwala in 39 pleas lead one filed by Janhit Abhiyan that challenged the Constitutional Amendment 103rd that provided a 10% quota for EWS in educational or public employment.
Professor Dr Mohan Gopal criticized the amendment, saying it sought to repeal and neutralize the Constitution’s idea of treating unequals as unequal. Stating that reservation is a fraud with the Constitution, Gopal said reservation was a means of representation in the Constitution for backward groups, but the EWS restricted the benefits of reservation to only “the next classes”.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora argued that the 103rd Amendment was a violation of equality in a way that undermined the socially and educationally backward classes who were the beneficiaries of reservation and violated the Equality Code. He also argued that
“It violates in a way that it excludes particular clauses and thus a commitment to equality. For the first time, we are explicitly boycotting the poorest and most vulnerable. The process is also unequal and discriminatory. Pretending that both EWS and Backward Classes need reservation is not fair. Economic loss is neither root nor permanent. It is temporary and it is based on a disadvantaged person who can be cured with money.
Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh submitted that the 103rd Amendment which provides for reservation on the basis of economic criteria except for SCs, STs and OBCs, is against the Equality Code and thus violates the basic features of the Constitution. It was also Parikh’s argument that economic parameters cannot come under the norms of reservation or a special provision under the Constitution.
CASE TITLE: Janhit Abhiyan versus Union Of India
Written By
Karan Suri (Intern)
0 Comments