Gulsher Khan-2681
03/04/2024
Reliance on the decision of this Court in the Indira Sinha case Learned Counsel has port
economic criteria can not be the sole basis to provide reservation. He would further submitted
that a class should be homogenous have a common origin and have a numerical stress. The EWS
created by the amendment in question does not full filled and any criteria and hence a call class
for any action particularly affirmative action. He further emphasis on this argument by intensive
reading the opinion of justice Sinha in Indira Sinha. Learned Counsel has further submitted that
the amendment in question fails on the basic of equality Code because if poverty is rational
behind it and it aim and providing jobs for the poor by way of reservation than the amendment
fails to address has to how the poverty of the is different from what has SCs, STs, and OBCs.
Hence the amendment in question the twin the test nexus and violates the basic structure of
Constitution.
Learned Counsel has submitted that in India reservation formed a special part of affirmative
action as within larger affirmative circle the reservation find a place transient country like US,
Israel and Germany that indeed affirmative action answer but it is not only the answer. There are
therefore many ways of addressing the issue of economic disadvantage other than reservation has
been done by this countries. He would further submitted the limit such reservation can not
exceed 50 percent except when compelling reason arise. Are going that the Equality Code
reliance of the classification laid down by this Court by the present nether any reasonable
classification such in nexus that object to be achieved hence is violate of article 40 entire list
category to citizens caste and amendment did not conclude in the marginalisation and entire
granting reservation. He has also quoted a John Sir to submitted each person as a same
indevisable right over however claim one for all Lion and Ox is operation the Learned Counsel
collecting William constist.
The first granting reservation to upper castes is violation of Constitution of as to basis
reservation must be root identified past discrimination which impeded an asses to Public
Discussion and education opportunities. Reliain on this Court in Indira Sinha Court and Dadaram
Verma on the basis of economic criteria of this Court and High Court respectively. He has such
economic criteria action for proceeding and the reservation can not exceed 50 percent. Limit
second he has submitted reservation in the favour formed all class the basic structure and
Constitution and therefore in Constitutional. The third classification of EWS classification the
nether SCs, STs and OBSs and perpetual discrimination and stigmatisation. It was a strictly
bearer a mainstream reservation can not be use to be poverty hence such classification violates
under article 40. Force amendment in question fails the with test laid down and Nagaran and
limitation that have ben devided the identified people under the EWS. Where as each category
SCs, STs, OBCs. The Constitution over seen perview article 366. First of all hence Constituent
Assembly granting of.
Learned Counsel while placing debate the decision of the Court which are Kasparan Bharti and
103 amendment violate. The basic of the Constitution he would again submitted providing the
submission should economic criteria is kind decision would Indira Sinha and also vesit the
democracy of democracy Act representative economic the transient in major backward classes
under article 64. Their in the ground in our society discrimination find root caste region raise and
not economic condition of a person. The classification under article 14 as to have reasonable a
undevisable the root. Aforesment the reason fails achieve. He has also indeed forward class must
have faced discrimination but intensity is not enough to justified reservation to support the
reservation relience of the judgement on this Court Madhav Rai Court case.
