IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

IN THE MATTER OF:

YOUTH FOR EQUALITY & Anr., …Petitioners

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS., …Respondents

PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

WITH:
I.A.No. /2019: Application for Stay

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS: Senthil Jagadeesan

 INDEX OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Sr. No. Date of Record of Proceedings Page

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.
 INDEX

S. Particulars of the Page number of part to

Remark
NO documents which it belongs

Part-I Part-II
(Contents of (Contents of
Paper Book) file alone)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

1 Listing Proforma A-A1 A-A1

2 Cover Page- Paper Book

3 Record of Proceedings

4 Defect List

5 Note Sheet

6 Synopsis & List of Dates

7 Writ Petition & Affidavit

Annexure P-1: A true

copy of the News Report
8. of the Hindu dated
07.01.2019
Annexure P-2: A true
copy of the News Report
9. of Times of India dated
08.01.2019
Annexure P-3: A true
copy of the 124th
10. Constitution
Amendment Bill, 2019.

11. F/M

12. V/A
 I.A.No. _/2018:
13.
Application for Stay
PERFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

Section:

The case pertains to (Please tick / check the correct box):

Central Act: Constitution of India, 1950,

Section: Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution;
Central Rule: N/A
Rule No: N/A
State Act: N/A
Section: N/A
State Rule: N/A
Rule No: N/A
Impugned Interim Order: N/A
Impugned Final Order / Decree: N/A
High Court: N/A
Name of Judges: N/A
Tribunal / Authority Name : N/A

1. Nature of Matter: Civil

2. (a) Petitioner / Appellant :Youth For Equality, Through President, Dr.
Kaushal Kant Mishra
(b) Email ID: N/A

(c) Phone No: N/A

3. (a) Respondent: Union of India

(b) Email ID: N/A

(c) Phone No: N/A

4. (a) Main Category:

(b) Sub Category:

5. Not to be listed before: N/A

6. Similar/Pending matter: N/A

7. Criminal Matters: N/A

(a) Whether accused / convicted has surrendered: N/A

 (b) FIR / Complaint No: N/A

(c) Police Station: N/A

(d) Sentence Awarded: N/A

(e) Period of Sentence Undergone including period of detention/custody

under gone: N/A

8. Land Acquisition Matters:

(a) Date of Section 4 Notification: N/A

(b) Date of Section 6 Notification: N/A

(c) Date of Section 17 Notification: N/A

9. Tax Matters: State the Tax Effect: N/A

10. Special Category: N/A

11. Vehicle No in case of motor accident claim matters): N/A

12. Decided Cases with Citation: N/A

Date: .01.2019

Senthil Jagadeesan
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS
 SYNOPSIS

The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 which has been swiftly

piloted through both Houses of Parliament and passed with little

debate in the first week of January 2019 is the subject matter of the

present challenge on the ground that it violates several basic features

of the Constitution.

This Amendment essentially inserts Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the

Constitution which permit the following:

a. The State to provide for special provisions / reservations for any

economically weaker sections of citizens.

b. These economically weaker sections to be of those other than the

backward classes or SCs/STs.

c. These measures to be to a maximum of 10% of seats/posts in

addition to the existing reservations.

d. The reservations in Article 15(6) to be for unaided institutions as

well, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 19(1)(G) & 29(2).

Each of the above 4 aspects violate one or other of the basic features of

the Constitution, and hence such a manifest and obvious violation of

the Constitution ought to be prevented.

I. Economic criteria cannot be the sole basis for

reservation

In Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. 3 SCC 217, the

Constitution Bench specifically stated that the economic criteria

cannot be the sole basis for reservations under the Constitution. The

majority holds as follows in Para 799:

 “It follows from the discussion under Question No. 3 that a backward
class cannot be determined only and exclusively with reference to
economic criterion. It may be a consideration or basis along with and
in addition to social backwardness, but it can never be the sole
criterion. This is the view uniformly taken by this Court and we
respectfully agree with the same.”

Concurring with the above view, Justice Sawant says at Para 481:
“Thus, not only the concept of “weaker sections” under Article 46 is
different from that of the “backward class” of citizens in Article 16(4),
but the purpose of the two is also different. One is for the limited
purpose of the reservation and hence suffers from limitations, while
the other is for all purposes under Article 46, which purposes are other
than reservation under Article 16(4). While those entitled to benefits
under Article 16(4) may also be entitled to avail of the measures taken
under Article 46, the converse is not true. If this is borne in mind, the
reasons why mere poverty or economic consideration cannot be a
criterion for identifying backward classes of citizens under Article
16(4) would be more clear.”

In addition, Justice Sahai records at Para 627:

“But any reservation or affirmative action on economic criteria or
wealth discrimination cannot be upheld under doctrine of reasonable
classification. Reservation for backward class seeks to achieve the
social purpose of sharing in services which had been monopolised by
few of the forward classes. To bridge the gap, thus created, the
affirmative actions have been upheld as the social and educational
difference between the two classes furnished reasonable basis for
classification. Same cannot be said for rich and poor. Indigence
cannot be a rational basis for classification for public employment.”

The above Constitution Amendment completely violates the

Constitutional norm that economic criterion cannot be the only basis

of reservation as has been laid down by the 9 judges in Indira Sawhney,

without removing the basis of the judgement. Such an Amendment is

hence, vulnerable and ought to be struck down as it merely negates a

binding judgement.

II. The economic reservation cannot be limited to the

general categories

Repeatedly, this Hon’ble Court has upheld the equality code as one of

the foremost basic features of the Constitution. From Maneka Gandhi,

(1978) 1 SCC 248 and I.R.Coelho, (2007) 2 SCC 1 to Shayara Bano,

(2017) 9 SCC 1, the value of equality has been repeatedly emphasized

to ensure that equals are not treated unequally. By way of the present

amendments, the exclusion of the OBCs and the SCs/STs from the

scope of the economic reservation essentially implies that only those

who are poor from the general categories would avail the benefits of

the quotas. Taken together with the fact that the high creamy layer

limit of Rs.8 lakh per annum ensures that the elite in the OBCs and

SCs/STs capture the reservation benefits repeatedly, the poor sections

of these categories remain completely deprived. This is an

overwhelming violation of the basic feature of equality enshrined in

Article 14 of the Constitution and elsewhere.

III. The 50% ceiling limit cannot be breached

This Hon’ble Court, speaking through the Constitution Bench in the

case of M.Nagaraj Vs. Union of India &Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 212, upheld

the Constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) and the proviso to Article

335 in the following words:

“We reiterate that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of

creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely,
backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall
administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements
without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article
16 would collapse.”

In Para 104, the Court specifically states that “As stated above, be it

reservation or evaluation, excessiveness in either would result in

violation of the constitutional mandate.”

Thus, the 50% ceiling limit of reservations has been engrafted as a part

of the basic structure of the Constitution’s equality code. This has in

fact been reiterated by the Constitution Bench recently in Jarnail Singh

Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396, which declined to refer

the correctness of the dicta laid down in Nagaraj to a larger bench.

IV. Imposing reservations on unaided institutions is

manifestly arbitrary

Both the Constitution Bench judgements in T.M.A.Pai Foundation,

(2002) 8 SCC 481 and P.A.Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC 537 make it clear

that the State’s reservation policy cannot be imposed on unaided

educational institutions, and as they are not receiving any aid from the

State, they can have their own admissions provided they are fair,

transparent, non-exploitative and based on merit.

While the impugned amendment attempts to overcome the

applicability of Articles 19(1)(G) and 29(2), it remains completely silent

on Article 14, which right protects the citizens from manifestly

arbitrary State action. The majority in Shayara Bano, (2017) 9 SCC 1

has specifically held manifest arbitrariness as a facet of Article 14.

Hence, the effective nationalization of unaided institutions to the

extent of economic reservation is violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution on plain terms and also of the basic features of autonomy

and equity.

On these and other grounds, including the undefined

“economically weaker sections” as well as the ambiguous “State” that

would define it, the impugned Amendment ought to be quashed with

the same being stayed pending the disposal of the present Petition.

LIST OF DATES
16.11.1992 Towards the implementation of the

recommendations of the Mandal Commission,

certain Office Memoranda were issued by the

Government of India, which provided for

reservations for the backward classes of citizens in

services under the State.

When these were challenged before this Hon’ble

Supreme Court, the Petitions were heard by the

Constitution Bench in a batch of matters led by

Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3)

SCC 217. While the OMs were sustained, the Court

significantly stated that sole economic criteria could

not be a basis for reservation and that the 50%

ceiling limit ought not to be crossed.

1995 By way of the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act,

1995, Article 16(4A) was inserted in the

Constitution permitting reservation in promotions

for those Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

who are, in the State’s opinion, not adequately

represented in the services under the State. This

provision was later amended to include

consequential seniority by way of the Constitution

(85th Amendment) Act, 2001.

2000 By way of the Constitution (81st Amendment) Act,

2000, Article 16(4B) is inserted in the Constitution

 providing for carrying forward reserved vacancies

in promotions and to treat them as a separate class

to be filled up the following year.

Separately, by way of the Constitution (82nd

Amendment) Act, 2000, a proviso is inserted in

Article 335 to provide for relaxations in qualifying

marks for promotion to any class or post connected

with the affairs of the Union or a State.

19.10.2006 A Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the

case of M.Nagaraj Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006)

8 SCC 212 upholds the constitutional validity of Art

16(4A), 16(4B) and the Proviso to Article 335 of the

Constitution of India, subject to certain conditions

laid down therein directing for proper exercises to

be conducted by the State to show that there is in

fact an inadequacy of representation. Significantly,

one of the basic features as enunciated is the ceiling

limit of 50% on reservations.

07.01.2019 The Hindu carries a news report that reveals that

the Union Cabinet has approved a Constitution

Amendment Bill to provide 10% reservation to

economically backward sections in the general

category and this would be over and above the

existing 49.5% reservation provided to SCs/STs and

OBCs.
08.01.2019 The Constitution 124th Amendment Bill is passed

the following day by the Lok Sabha with 323

members voting in favour of the same.

09.01.2019 With the Parliamentary session extended by a day,

the Rajya Sabha passes the Constitution 124th

Amendment Bill with 165 ‘ayes’.

.01.2019 Aggrieved by the manner in which the equality code

is being breached and the basic structure of the

Constitution altered, the Petitioners herein prefer

the present Writ Petition in public interest

challenging the Constitution 103rd Amendment Act,

2019.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. YOUTH FOR EQUALITY
Through its President,
With Office at P-90A,
IInd Floor, South Extension-II,
New Delhi – 110034.

2. DR.KAUSHAL KANT MISHRA,

s/o. Shri K.K.Mishra,
r/o. Flat No.2, 2nd Floor,
SRK Apartments,
Sultanpur,
Mehrauli,
New Delhi –110030. …Petitioners

VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through the Cabinet Secretary,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110004.

2. THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,

PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS,
Through its Secretary,
North Block,
New Delhi – 110001.

3. UNION OF INDIA
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Law and Justice
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001 …Respondents.

To
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
and his Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India

The humble Petition of the Petitioner above named-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India is being filed in public interest against the Constitution

(103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 which provides for the insertion of

Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution so as to alter the basic

structure of the Constitution and to annul binding judgements of

the Supreme Court without removing the basis thereof.

2. Petitioner No.1 is Youth for Equality, an organization that has

been a Petitioner before this Hon’ble Court on several occasions,

opposing caste-based quotas and seeking transparency in

judicial administration. It is an organization of students,

teachers and professionals formed to uphold the Constitution

and protect the nation from populist measures that harm its

social fabric. Youth for Equality has already been a Petitioner

before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(c) No.598/2007 in the batch

of cases led by Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India, reported

in (2008) 3 SCC 1, which also challenged the provisions for

reservations in Central Educational Institutions. Petitions filed

by the present Petitioner before this Hon’ble Court which are

pending include a challenge to the marital rape exception in the

Indian Penal Code and seeking accountability and transparency

in appointment processes of the CBI, CVC and CIC.

3. Petitioner No.2 is the President of Petitioner No.1, who has in his

independent capacity as well been part of earlier litigation before

 this Hon’ble Court challenging the populist caste-based quota

measures that harm the social fabric of the community.

Petitioner No.2 is a senior orthopaedic surgeon, formerly at

AIIMS, and presently at the super-specialty Primus Hospital,

Chanakyapuri. Both the Petitioners are citizens of India and have

no personal interest in the present litigation, but are agitating the

present issues in wider public interest and to protect the

Constitution of India and the social fabric of the nation from

politically motivated initiatives that harm the unity and integrity

of the country.

4. The Respondents herein are the proper authorities representing

the Government of India that is responsible for the impugned

Constitution Amendment. They are all covered by the definition

of ‘State’ in Article 12 of the Constitution, and as such, the present

Petition is maintainable against them.

5. The Brief Facts giving rise to the present petition are as follow:-

a. Towards the implementation of the recommendations of the

Mandal Commission, certain Office Memoranda were issued by

the Government of India in 1990, which provided for

reservations for the backward classes of citizens in services under

the State.

b. When these were challenged before this Hon’ble Supreme Court,

the Petitions were heard by the Constitution Bench in a batch of

matters led by Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3)

SCC 217. While the OMs were sustained, the Court significantly
 stated that sole economic criteria could not be a basis for

reservation and that the 50% ceiling limit ought not to be

crossed.

c. By way of the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995, Article

16(4A) was inserted in the Constitution permitting reservation in

promotions for those Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

who are, in the State’s opinion, not adequately represented in the

services under the State. This provision was later amended to

include consequential seniority by way of the Constitution (85th

Amendment) Act, 2001.

d. By way of the Constitution (81st Amendment) Act, 2000, Article

16(4B) is inserted in the Constitution providing for carrying

forward reserved vacancies in promotions and to treat them as a

separate class to be filled up the following year.

e. Separately, by way of the Constitution (82nd Amendment) Act,

2000, a proviso is inserted in Article 335 to provide for relaxation

in qualifying marks for promotion to any class or post connected

with the affairs of the Union or a State.

f. A Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of

M.Nagaraj Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 212 upholds

the constitutional validity of Art 16(4A), 16(4B) and the Proviso

to Article 335 of the Constitution of India, subject to certain

conditions laid down therein directing for proper exercises to be

conducted by the State to show that there is in fact an inadequacy

of representation. Significantly, one of the basic features as

enunciated is the ceiling limit of 50% on reservations.

 g. On 07.01.2019, the Hindu carries a news report that reveals that

the Union Cabinet has approved a Constitution Amendment Bill

to provide 10% reservation to economically backward sections in

the general category and this would be over and above the

existing 49.5% reservation provided to SCs/STs and OBCs. A true

copy of the news report of the Hindu dated 07.01.2019 is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-1 (pp. -__)

h. The Constitution 124th Amendment Bill is passed the following

day by the Lok Sabha with 323 members voting in favour of the

same. A true copy of the news report of the Times of India dated

08.01.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-2

(pp. - )

i. With the Parliamentary session extended by a day, the Rajya

Sabha on the following day, i.e.09.01.2019 passes the

Constitution 124th Amendment Bill, 2019 with 165 ‘ayes’. A true

copy of the Constitution (124th Amendment) Bill, 2019 which is

now the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-3 (pp. - )

j. Aggrieved by the manner in which the equality code is being

breached and the basic structure of the Constitution altered, the

Petitioners herein prefer the present Writ Petition in public

interest challenging the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act,

2019.

6. Hence, being aggrieved by the populist acts of the Respondents

which have no legal sanctity, the Petitioner submits this petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia on the

 following grounds which are set out herein below without

prejudice to each other.

GROUNDS
A. The impugned Constitution Amendment violates the equality

code of the Constitution and is hence, in breach of the basic

structure of the Constitution.

B. The impugned Constitution Amendments fail to consider that

Articles 14 and 16 form the basic feature of equality, and that they

have been violated with the doing away of the restraints that were

imposed on the reservation policy, i.e. the 50% ceiling limit and

the exclusion of economic status as a sole criterion.

C. This Hon’ble Court, speaking through the Constitution Bench in

the case of M.Nagaraj Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC

212, upheld the Constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) and the

proviso to Article 335 in the following words:

“We reiterate that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of

creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely,
backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall
administrative efficiency are all constitutional
requirements without which the structure of equality of
opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.”

In Para 104, the Court specifically states that “As stated above,

be it reservation or evaluation, excessiveness in either would

result in violation of the constitutional mandate.”

Thus, the 50% ceiling limit of reservations has been engrafted as

a part of the basic structure of the Constitution’s equality code.

This has in fact been reiterated by the Constitution Bench

 recently in Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10

SCC 396, which declined to refer the correctness of the dicta laid

down in Nagaraj to a larger bench.

D. In Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. 3 SCC 217, the

Constitution Bench specifically stated that the economic criteria

cannot be the sole basis for reservations under the Constitution.

The majority holds as follows in Para 799:

“It follows from the discussion under Question No. 3 that a

backward class cannot be determined only and exclusively with
reference to economic criterion. It may be a consideration or
basis along with and in addition to social backwardness, but it
can never be the sole criterion. This is the view uniformly taken
by this Court and we respectfully agree with the same.”

Concurring with the above view, Justice Sawant says at Para 481:

“Thus, not only the concept of “weaker sections” under Article

46 is different from that of the “backward class” of citizens in
Article 16(4), but the purpose of the two is also different. One is
for the limited purpose of the reservation and hence suffers
from limitations, while the other is for all purposes under
Article 46, which purposes are other than reservation under
Article 16(4). While those entitled to benefits under Article
16(4) may also be entitled to avail of the measures taken under
Article 46, the converse is not true. If this is borne in mind, the
reasons why mere poverty or economic consideration cannot be
a criterion for identifying backward classes of citizens under
Article 16(4) would be more clear.”

In addition, Justice Sahai records at Para 627:

“But any reservation or affirmative action on economic criteria
or wealth discrimination cannot be upheld under doctrine of
reasonable classification. Reservation for backward class seeks
to achieve the social purpose of sharing in services which had
been monopolised by few of the forward classes. To bridge the
 gap, thus created, the affirmative actions have been upheld as
the social and educational difference between the two classes
furnished reasonable basis for classification. Same cannot be
said for rich and poor. Indigence cannot be a rational basis for
classification for public employment.”
The above Constitution Amendment completely violates the

Constitutional norm that economic criterion cannot be the only

basis of reservation as has been laid down by the 9 judges in

Indira Sawhney, without removing the basis of the judgement.

Such an Amendment is hence, vulnerable and ought to be struck

down as it merely negates a binding judgement.

E. Repeatedly, this Hon’ble Court has upheld the equality code as

one of the foremost basic features of the Constitution. From

Maneka Gandhi, (1978) 1 SCC 248 and I.R.Coelho, (2007) 2 SCC

1 to Shayara Bano, (2017) 9 SCC 1, the value of equality has been

repeatedly emphasized to ensure that equals are not treated

unequally. By way of the present amendments, the exclusion of

the OBCs and the SCs/STs from the scope of the economic

reservation essentially implies that only those who are poor from

the general categories would avail the benefits of the quotas.

Taken together with the fact that the high creamy layer limit of

Rs.8 lakh per annum ensures that the elite in the OBCs and

SCs/STs capture the reservation benefits repeatedly, the poor

sections of these categories remain completely deprived. This is

an overwhelming violation of the basic feature of equality

enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and elsewhere.

F. Both the Constitution Bench judgements in T.M.A.Pai

Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481 and P.A.Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC

537 make it clear that the State’s reservation policy cannot be

imposed on unaided educational institutions, and as they are not

receiving any aid from the State, they can have their own

admissions provided they are fair, transparent, non-exploitative

and based on merit. While the impugned amendment attempts

to overcome the applicability of Articles 19(1)(G) and 29(2), it

remains completely silent on Article 14, which right protects the

citizens from manifestly arbitrary State action. The majority in

Shayara Bano, (2017) 9 SCC 1 has specifically held manifest

arbitrariness as a facet of Article 14. Hence, the effective

nationalization of unaided institutions to the extent of economic

reservation is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on plain

terms and also of the basic features of autonomy and equity.

G. It is further submitted that the use of the expression

“economically weaker sections” remains undefined by the

amendment and is left to be notified by “the State”. Not only is it

unclear whether the Central Government and State

Governments can both define the expression separately, but they

both may define it differently. This level of untrammeled

vagueness makes the insertion arbitrary and unworkable.

H. By virtue of the non-obstante clause, the State is permitted to

define “any” economically weaker “section”, i.e. Hindu

washermen earning below Rs.100 a day, Muslim weavers earning

less than Rs.2 lakh a month, etc., which would normally be hit by
 the provisions of Articles 15(1) and 16(2) as well as the secular

feature of the Constitution. It is imperative that Articles 15(1) and

16(2) be treated as part of the basic structure of the Constitution

brooking no exception at all.

I. Just as with women and persons with disabilities, the economic

criterion ought to have been applied horizontally as economic

backwardness is found across all castes and groups. This would

have ensured that the reservation remained within the 50% limit

while in fact subserving the purpose of Article 46 of the

Constitution.

J. Instead of exploring other alternatives as directed by this

Hon’ble Court, the Respondents have taken to amending the

Constitution repeatedly so that a populist measure can be

permitted to flourish with a clear eye on the vote bank. It is

necessary and incumbent on the Respondents to explain as to

what other measures have been even remotely explored by them

to obtain the social objectives outlined in the Constitution.

K. As stated in Nagaraj and reiterated in several judgments of the

Supreme Court and the High Courts, it is now imperative that in

order for reservations to be imposed, there be some sort of

quantitative exercise undertaken in advance. There has been

absolutely no such attempt made to arrive at the ad-hoc 10%

figure that is now introduced in the Constitution and this is

manifestly arbitrary and violative of the basic feature of non-

arbitrariness.
7. The Petitioners submit that they have not filed any other Petition

arising out of the same cause of action or facts before this or any

other Court in the country.

8. The Annexures P-1 to P-3 produced along with the Writ Petition

are true copies of their respective originals.

9. The Petitionershave no other better or more efficacious remedy

available than to file the instant Writ Petition in public interest

under Article 32 of the Constitution since the issue concerns a

Constitutional Amendment that affects the whole country and is

of overarching importance which requires the urgent

intervention of this Hon'ble Court.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

be pleased to:

a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

quashing the Constitution (103rd) Amendment Act, 2019 as

violative of the basic structure of the Constitution;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

staying the Constitution (103rd) Amendment Act, 2019

pending the hearing and disposal of the present Writ Petition;

c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

grant in the interests of justice;

 AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL
AS IN DUTY BOUND EVERY PRAY.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

Aishwarya Kane &
Gayatri Verma
Advocates, SENTHIL JAGADEESAN
Supreme Court of India Advocate for the Petitioners

SETTLED BY:
Gopal Sankaranarayanan
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

DRAWN ON: 10.01.2019

FILED ON: .01.2019
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

YOUTH FOR EQUALITY & Anr., …Petitioners

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS., …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT
I, Dr.Kaushal Kant Mishra, s/o. Shri K.K.Mishra, r/o. Flat No.2,
2nd Floor, SRK Apartments, Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi – 110030
do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am the President and authorized signatory of the
Petitioner herein and as such I am well conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the present case and am competent to
swear to this affidavit.
2. That I have perused the accompanying Synopsis and List of Dates
at Pages B to and Writ Petition in Paras 1 to and state
that the averments contained therein are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief. No part thereof is false and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.
3. That the documents annexed to the accompanying Petition are
true copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this the 10th day of January, 2019 that
the contents of the above Affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief and no part thereof is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION

I.A.No. of 2019

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

Youth for Equality & Anr., …Petitioners/Applicants

Versus

Union of India & Ors., …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR STAY

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

And his companion judges of
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
The Petitioner hereinabove named
Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. The present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India is being filed in public interest against the Constitution

(103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 which provides for the insertion of

Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution so as to alter the basic

structure of the Constitution and to annul binding judgements of

the Supreme Court without removing the basis thereof.

2. The contents of the accompanying Writ Petition may be read as

a part of the present Application seeking urgent stay of the

impugned Constitution (103rd) Amendment Act, 2019 which has

been passed in a hurry over barely 3 days by both Houses of

Parliament as a populist measure and which breach fundamental

features of the Constitution.

3. Ex-facie, there are 2 immediate violations of the basic structure

of the Constitution:

a. Permitting the reservation to exceed the limit of 50% which

has been laid down in Indira Sawhney and which is

reiterated in Nagaraj as a basic feature which saved

amendments there from being quashed.

b. The exclusion of the economically weaker sections of the

OBC/SC/ST from the scope of the economic reservation

which is a fundamental violation of the equality code.

4. Even earlier, when the Central Educational Institutions

(Reservations in Admissions) Act was challenged in this Hon’ble

Court, the operative provision of the same was stayed at the

interim stage pending the hearing of the final matter in Ashoka

Kumar Thakur. This was also the case with the OMs impugned

in Indira Sawhney. It is thus with strong precedent value on the

subject of reservations that the present impugned enactment

ought to be stayed.

5. It is submitted that if these illegal provisions are not stayed and

admissions / appointments were to take place under them, they

would be irreversible and cause great injustice and

disgruntlement to those who are justly entitled. As nearly 70

years have passed without this type of reservation, it would be

appropriate to keep it in abeyance until the hearing of the present

petition is concluded.
 PRAYER

In light of the arguments advanced, it is most respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

i. STAY the operation of the Constitution (103rd) Amendment Act,

2019; and

ii. PASS any other orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Senthil Jagadeesan
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
Date: 10.01.2019
Place: New Delhi