DMK information evaluation plea on EWS ruling, claims it violates equality

Express News Service

NEW DELHI: Tamil Nadu’s ruling DMK on Monday approached the Supreme Court searching for a evaluation of its November 7 verdict upholding the ten% quota granted to individuals belong to economically weaker sections (EWS) in schooling and jobs. The quota was launched by the use of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. A five-judge SC bench had upheld the modification by a 3:2 majority.

Contending the decision “legitimises discrimination”, the plea says all 5 judges held the modification can’t be stated to breach the fundamental construction of the Constitution, thereby overruling the landmark Indra Sawhney verdict.

“…this is error apparent on the face of the record since it directly overrules the judgment passed by the nine-judge constitution bench in Indra Sawhney versus Union of India 1992, which has authoritatively pronounced that reservations cannot be on the basis of the economic criteria and such interpretation was on the basis of Articles 14,15(1) and 16(1), not Articles 15(4) and 16(4) alone,” the plea says.

“… after going in depth into how poverty prevents access to education and employment, and the importance of alleviating the same — the majority judges have not given any justification for excluding ST, SC & OBCs from the EWS reservation other than to say that they have already been given reservations…”

“Impugned judgment approves exclusion and discrimination as it permits poor from ST, SC & OBC to be excluded from 10% reservation, when they too are economically backward and therefore it violates equality code,” it argues.

The plea additionally contends that the impugned judgment lays down a legislation that Parliament can carry any sort of reservations for any class by constitutional modification and there shall be no bar within the structure in opposition to doing so.

“The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 has made a large section of advanced classes viz upper caste of population eligible for easy, exclusive, luxurious reservations. The Constitution has given them a mask to hide behind the misleading term “economically weaker sections”. It’s a proven fact that they haven’t suffered social stigma nor discrimination from the society or evaded jobs or from the mainstream. The constitutional modification doesn’t outline the time period “economically weaker sections”.

The phrase “economically” showing within the 103rd Constitutional Amendment can’t be disjunctively learn in isolation, with out the phrase “weaker sections” to exclude reservations for SC/ST/OBCs (which is in battle with Article 46) who’re constitutionally recognised weaker sections,” the plea states.  Contending that the decision impacts a inhabitants of 133 crore, the DMK has looked for an open courtroom listening to.

NEW DELHI: Tamil Nadu’s ruling DMK on Monday approached the Supreme Court searching for a evaluation of its November 7 verdict upholding the ten% quota granted to individuals belong to economically weaker sections (EWS) in schooling and jobs. The quota was launched by the use of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. A five-judge SC bench had upheld the modification by a 3:2 majority.

Contending the decision “legitimises discrimination”, the plea says all 5 judges held the modification can’t be stated to breach the fundamental construction of the Constitution, thereby overruling the landmark Indra Sawhney verdict.

“…this is error apparent on the face of the record since it directly overrules the judgment passed by the nine-judge constitution bench in Indra Sawhney versus Union of India 1992, which has authoritatively pronounced that reservations cannot be on the basis of the economic criteria and such interpretation was on the basis of Articles 14,15(1) and 16(1), not Articles 15(4) and 16(4) alone,” the plea says.

“… after going in depth into how poverty prevents access to education and employment, and the importance of alleviating the same — the majority judges have not given any justification for excluding ST, SC & OBCs from the EWS reservation other than to say that they have already been given reservations…”

“Impugned judgment approves exclusion and discrimination as it permits poor from ST, SC & OBC to be excluded from 10% reservation, when they too are economically backward and therefore it violates equality code,” it argues.

The plea additionally contends that the impugned judgment lays down a legislation that Parliament can carry any sort of reservations for any class by constitutional modification and there shall be no bar within the structure in opposition to doing so.

“The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 has made a large section of advanced classes viz upper caste of population eligible for easy, exclusive, luxurious reservations. The Constitution has given them a mask to hide behind the misleading term “economically weaker sections”. It’s a proven fact that they haven’t suffered social stigma nor discrimination from the society or evaded jobs or from the mainstream. The constitutional modification doesn’t outline the time period “economically weaker sections”.

The phrase “economically” showing within the 103rd Constitutional Amendment can’t be disjunctively learn in isolation, with out the phrase “weaker sections” to exclude reservations for SC/ST/OBCs (which is in battle with Article 46) who’re constitutionally recognised weaker sections,” the plea states.  Contending that the decision impacts a inhabitants of 133 crore, the DMK has looked for an open courtroom listening to.