The Central government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the 10 percent reservation for economically weaker sections among the general category population is a “positive step” and is different from, and does not impinge on, the 50 percent reservation given to SC, ST, and OBC communities. SC has earlier restricted reservations to 50 percent.
The top law officer rejected the petitioners’ argument that exclusion of backward classes from EWS quota amounts to discrimination. Mr. Venugopal submitted that as far as SCs and STs are concerned, sc and st are loaded with benefits through affirmative action. They are in a remarkable position in terms of conservation.
Mr. Venugopal argued that reservation for backward classes, and now EWS quota, should be considered by the court as a “single approach of the state aimed at the betterment of the weaker sections of the society”.
The law officer said there were past Supreme Court judgments that upheld state benefits based on economic criteria.
Mr. Venugopal’s written submissions noted how the apex court had upheld the validity of the Free and Compulsory Education of Children Act, 2009.
Mr. Venugopal argued that this Court held that the 2009 Act seeks to remove all barriers, including economical and emotional barriers, that a child from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups has to face for admission and therefore upheld it under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, it said That allocating seats to a particular class of children who face financial barriers to access to education satisfies the classification test in Article 14.
Shekhar Naphade, a senior advocate of Tamil Nadu, agreed with the petitioners who mentioned the economic criterion alone cannot be the basis of reservation.
