By Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Supporting the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act (Act) which granted 10% reservation to economically weaker for admission to central government and private educational institutions and recruitment in central government jobs, the Central government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that EWS reservation was for the group of people consisting people from forward castes, non-Backward Classes, and general category.
AG KK Venugopal before a 5 judge bench comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, SR Bhat, Bela Trivedi & JB Pardiwala also contended that SC/ST/OBC groups were the primary beneficiaries of most reservations and affirmative action policies and thus there was no basis for discrimination. “This reservation is a new evolution, totally independent of reservations for STs, SCs and OBCs. It doesn’t erode their rights,” Venugopal also said.
Objecting to the locus of the petitioners challenging the amendment, Venugopal said there were no grounds for discrimination unless these groups (SCs/STs/OBCs) could prove that the amendment affected them directly.
“In the normal course, unless they show that this amendment has affected them directly, it will not be accepted…Among the general category there is a section which is grossly poor, that is the EWS, why is this 50% limit being fixed?,” AG said. He also referred to a report by the Niti Aayog for highlighted the multidimensional poverty index.
NEW DELHI: Supporting the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act (Act) which granted 10% reservation to economically weaker for admission to central government and private educational institutions and recruitment in central government jobs, the Central government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that EWS reservation was for the group of people consisting people from forward castes, non-Backward Classes, and general category.
AG KK Venugopal before a 5 judge bench comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, SR Bhat, Bela Trivedi & JB Pardiwala also contended that SC/ST/OBC groups were the primary beneficiaries of most reservations and affirmative action policies and thus there was no basis for discrimination.
“This reservation is a new evolution, totally independent of reservations for STs, SCs and OBCs. It doesn’t erode their rights,” Venugopal also said.
Objecting to the locus of the petitioners challenging the amendment, Venugopal said there were no grounds for discrimination unless these groups (SCs/STs/OBCs) could prove that the amendment affected them directly.
“In the normal course, unless they show that this amendment has affected them directly, it will not be accepted…Among the general category there is a section which is grossly poor, that is the EWS, why is this 50% limit being fixed?,” AG said. He also referred to a report by the Niti Aayog for highlighted the multidimensional poverty index.
Leave a Reply