EWS Reservation- Supreme Court Constitution Bench Hearing DAY 3- LIVE UPDATES

J Bhat: There will still be a non discriminated group, who are unable to access many things. In theory, govt schools are available, but they're as disadvantaged as others. So per se what's so wrong if they don't belong to a homogeneous group? 

J Bhat: Keeping aside argument of exclusion, after 75 years, Constitution is a transformation doc. We see generations of poverty. We see BPL, there are a large mass of people. Why can't there be economic based affirmative action? Even if it's 20%, it's a large mass of people.

Bench discusses.

Farasat: What is the purpose of the two quotas? Purposes and entities are both different. So inclusion in one cannot mean exclusion in another.

Farasat: Therefore, to say that you had that quota, I'll deny you this, will not be permissible because they serve two different purposes and address different constituencies.

Farasat: It doesn't speak to individual. It speaks to the group. So my position, it's completely agnostic too. If I'm SC/ST, what I am it doesn't matter. This quota is a different animal, speaks to the individual on economic condition of that individual.

Farasat: To answer the CJ's question which is the argument on other side- you have your own quota. The quota for backward classes is for separate purpose- quota for a group, not individual, to correct historical wrongs, ensure representation.

Bench takes a short break.

CJI: The idea with which this amendment is introduced is that because there is already a protective umbrella giving them some kind of protection. That you can come to.

J Bhat: What you're saying that there are equally if not more disadvantaged are being excluded and they're being excluded.