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

Raj: In the context of exclusion, forward community becomes protected and backward become cognate. This is impermissible.

Raj: The principle of exclusion has to be tested in terms of modern jurisprudence. [Quotes Prof. Tarunabh Khaitan, Oxford Law]

Adv. Kaleeswaram Raj (for petitioners from virtual mode): Whether the present amendment infringes basic structure and if so, to what extent? The legitimacy of parliament is no less than that of Constituent assembly. That is accepted.

Raju: Religion may be for diversity, sex may be to balance, place of birth we cannot take away, but since casteless society is ideal of Constitution, it has to be destroyed.

Raju: If casteless society is ideal of Constitution, then these prohibited grounds have to be seen. 

Raju: Second part of Fraternity with dignity is that while drafting of the dignity clause- there was a distinction between class, caste and creed. Once classification is done, even for a good purpose, then it affects the dignity of all of us twice.

Raju: Other argument is on the ideal of fraternity. Fraternity cannot allow taking away 10% of seats which have been going on. 

Raju: Diversity is the content of secularism and is the ideal of the Constitution. [Refers to TMA Pai]- it should not just be allowed but promoted. 

Raju: To stop it, allow it to become adequate representation. My submission is, in the context of the Constitution is, one basic pillar of constitution is diversity.

Raju: Even if it stands the test of equality, you may see if diversity, adequate representation, which is the purpose of reservation is met. Reservation, once it starts, it has to end. Reservation cannot be forever.