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

Kapur: My last point is that 103rd amendment is discriminatory by being arbitrary as it doesn't go by procedure set out in Art 340.

Kapur: EWS is 5% people. For these 5% people, if you're giving 10% reservations, naturally the threshold becomes lower.

Kapur: Threshold for EWS is lower

CJI: Do you have any material on that?

J Bhat: Broader argument here is that it has left it to discretion of govt.

Kapur: 103rd amendment is discriminatory of SCs and STs.

Kapur: 15 cannot come in the absence either of abuse of power by state or citizens. Welfare measures can be provided but that cannot be under 15- that changes the character of fundamental rights.

Kapur: Income is not necessarily due to discrimination.

Kapur: 16(6) can only be in furtherance of equality of opportunity under 16(1). Unless it's in furtherance, it cannot stand.

Kapur: 16(4) has to be in furtherance of 16(1). Similarly, 16(6) has to also be in furtherance of 16(1). So if 16(6) is violating 16(1), it cannot stand.

[Refers on Indira Sawhney on how 16(6) violates 16(1)]

Kapur: You have to alleviate poverty without trampling on fundamental rights.

[Refers to India Sawhney and Minerva Mills judgement]

Kapur: Poverty alleviation is certainly a goal for the State to strive for as per DPSPs. We have reservations for SC/ST/OBCs for years. But we see where they are on poverty. So reservation isn't even a good way to alleviate poverty.