Mon. Sep 26th, 2022

NEW DELHI: As validity of the 103rd Amendment to the Constitution Whether it violated its basic structure by allowing set aside on an economic basis and violating the 50% cap would be decided, the Center argued Thursday before the Supreme Court that the amendment actually strengthened the basic structure of the Constitution by guaranteeing economic justice. to its citizens and the upper limit of the quota is not an inviolable golden rule.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench of UU Chief Justice Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala that economic weakness is also an impediment in social mobility and preference should be given people who are left behind due to poverty. treatment. He said that the 50% limit is a rule of thumb but not sacrosanct and cannot be raised to the level of basic structure as those who oppose the SAT fee.
“It is asserted that the basic structure can be said to be violated only when the change produced by the constitutional reform is of such magnitude and vast proportion that it results in fundamentally altering the identity of the Constitution or its basic characteristic. It is stated that not all changes related to the basic features that do not fundamentally alter the basic feature and simply make a minor deviation or addition, would not attract the limitation of the modifiability of the basic structure of the Constitution,” said the SG.
He argued that economic justice is part of the preamble of the Constitution and the superior court also in its various pronouncements emphasized the relevance of economic criteria.
“In no way can it be said that the challenged constitutional reform is equivalent to a rupture of the basic structure. On the contrary, the contested constitutional amendment promotes the judicial controls imposed in several sentences through a qualitative exclusion of the creamy layer of various classes provided for in article 16(4). This judicial interpretation of qualitative exclusions based on economic criteria is itself a manifestation of the acceptance of the relevance of economic criteria around affirmative action. That being the case, anchoring the reserve solely on the basis of economic criteria can in no way be said to alter the basic structure of the Constitution,” he said.
“This court has expressed in several sentences the quantitative limitation of 50% as the upper limit to the scope of the reservation prior to the constitutional reform. However, it should be noted that a study of the sentence and a close scrutiny of the language used in the sentences makes it explicitly clear that the 50% rule, if there is one, is merely a general rule and not an inviolable rule of thumb. ” he said.

Read More: EWS reservation: Quota ceiling not inviolable golden rule, Centre tells SC | India News