Before the Constitution Bench hearing the case of validity of reservation to Economic Backward  Sections, the most prominent advocate of the Central Government, KK Venugopal, AG when started to argue, the subject and stated before the Court that the SCs & STs had been loaded with benefits by way of affirmative action and went don't to saying that these classes were highly unequal and in tremendous position so far as the reservation is concerned. 

It was the 4th day of arguments before the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice UU Lalit, Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra, Bela M Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala when these arguments were made before the court. KK Venugopal submitted that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment joined the 1st Constitutional Amendment and the 93rd Constitutional Amendment in establishing a series of enabling provisions for weaker sections of society.  Attorney General submitted before the Court that, the economic weaker section is prevalent not only in General Class but also in SC, ST, and OBC and that consist of grossly poor people and submitted before the court that "

"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 Economically Weaker Section.  Why is this 50% limit being fixed? The reason is that if you exceed this 50%, the result will be that the general category will be restricted more and more. In Tamil Nadu, 69% is the total reservation. So now general category, which has a large population, gets less."

"Total population of Economically Weaker Sections of this country is 25%. 18.2% of the total population is Economically Weaker Sections of the Open/General category...So far as numbers are concerned, it would be about 350 million of the population."

The next argument which the Attorney General made was that "So we have poor people in all the four segments- SCs, STs, OBCs and General. What is the effect of 10% being there? It doesn't affect the 50% limit because the 50% was there only for balance. Suppose they decided that we will give 60% or 70% or 80%? The effect would then be that meritorious people will be deprived from seats in institutions and jobs. So I would now conclude that there exists two compartments so far as reservations are concerned. One is backward classes, which is limited to 50%. The other is a class which is also 50%, that is the general category. The benefit given so far as the general category is concerned, it is being given to the weaker section. "This reservation is a new evolution, totally independent of reservations for STs, SCs and OBCs. It doesn't erode their rights. This is independent of the 50%. The question of it exceeding the limit of 50% and hence violating the basic structure doesn't arise. Unless you put forward a ground of discrimination and violation of Article 14 on the ground that the EWS in 15(4) category is similar to EWS in the general category, the question of any special benefit being given to EWS in general category cannot arise. They're now seeking further reservations within the reservations already given. The question is whether this is permissible.Further question is are they (backward classes) equal in all aspects to the EWS in general category?The question of discrimination will arise between two classes that are similarly placed. Look at the benefits that SCs and STs are given. Article 16(4) shows that SCs and STs are being given a special provision by way of promotions, Article 243D provides them for reservation in panchayat, they have reservations in municipalities, Article 330 provides them reservations in the House of people and Article 332 provides them reservation in the legislative assembly. If all these benefits are given to them by way of a fact that they're backward then would they give up on this for the purpose of claiming equality? EWS have been given for the first time. On the other hand, so far as the SCs and STs are concerned, they've been loaded with benefits by way of affirmative actions. They're highly unequal and in tremendous position so far as reservations are concerned. EWS cannot be segregated from a homogeneous group. They have far additional advantage given to them because of their status as backward classes. They're therefore not equal to general category. They're one homogeneous group which cannot be divided into EWS and rest."

Case Details:

Writ Petition (C)NO.55/2019

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India