PSOL 1 - Respondents

PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
TEAM CODE – PSOL 1
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA
W.P. No. /2019
IN THE MATTERS OF
PUBLIC SPIRITED PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS & OTHERS………………PETITIONERS
Versus
UNION OF SINDIA…………….…………………………………………………………RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA
UNDER ART.32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA
1
● TABLE OF CONTENTThe VDR Bill, 2012 is very ambigauthority DEFINITION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................IV
Index of Authorities....................................................................................................................VI
Statement of Jurisdiction...........................................................................................................X
Statement of Facts......................................................................................................................XI
Issues Presented..........................................................................................................................XII
Summary of Arguments.............................................................................................................1
Arguments Advanced.............................................................................................................2-20
[1] Whether the instant petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court…………..3
[2] Whether the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 passed by the Union Government stands the
test of basic structure…………………………………………………………………….....4
i. Validity of a constitutional amendment

ii. This takes us to the question of whether 103 rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 is
violating the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
iii. Tests that a Constitutional Amendment has to pass in order to be valid
iv. Width Test is complied with
v. Statistical and Empirical data showing the Extra-Ordinary reasons behind this
Amendment.
2
[3] Whether reservation to 10% economically weaker sections of the erstwhile unreserved
category of students falls within the nexus of Arts 15 and 16 of the constitution……..11
i. Constituent Assembly debatesin this Regard

ii. Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
iii. Directive Principles of State Policy in this Regard
iv. Economic Criteria- A sole Basis for Reservation
v. Applicability of Indra Sawhney- Challenged
vi. Breach of the 50% Ceiling Rule
vii. Arguments in the Supreme Court on the current 10% reservations
viii. Principle of Strict Scrutiny
ix. Manifold Reach of Reservation
x. Validity of Art 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………21
3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ : Paragraph
AIR : All India Report
Art. : Article
BPL : Below Poverty Line
DPSP : Directive Principles of State Policy
EBC : Economically Backward Class
EWP : Economically Weaker Person
EWS : Economically Weaker Sections
FR : Fundamental Right
GC : General Category
IAS : Indian Administrative Service
IPS : Indian Police Service
NCEBC : National Commission for Economically Backward Class
NFHS : National Family Health Survey
NGO : Non-Governmental Organisation
NSSO : National Sample Survey Office
OBC : Other Backward Classes
p.a : Per annum
PIL : Public Interest Litigation
4
SC : Supreme Court
SC : Scheduled Castes
SCC : Supreme Court Cases
SCR : Supreme Court Reporter
SEBC : Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
SOP : Separation of Powers
ST : Scheduled Tribes
Supp/ Supl : Supplement
u/s : Under Section
UOI : Union of India
UOS : Union of Sindia
v. : Versus
5
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI Writ Petition (civil) 265 of 2006

{(2008) 6 SCC 1}
BandhuaMuktiMorcha v. UOI 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
Chitralekhav. State of Mysore 1964 AIR 1823, 1964 SCR (6) 368

D.S. Nakara v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130
Golaknath v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299

IndraSawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 ,
AIR 1993 SC 477
Islamic Academy of Education &Anr. v. State of (2003) 6 SCC 697
Karnataka &Ors
K.C.Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka 1985 AIR 1495, 1985 SCR Supl.
(1) 352
KesavanandhaBharathi v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
M. Nagaraj v. UOI (2006) 8 SCC 212 pg.30 /
(2007) 1 SCC 1013
Minerva Mills v. UOI AIR 1980 SC 1789
Mohd. HanifQureshi and others v. State of Bihar and AIR 1958 SC 731 Para 15 and 16
others
Narendra Kumar v. UOI 1960 (2) SCR 375
P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &Ors (2005) 6 SCC 537
Pramathi Educational and Cultural Trust v. UOI Writ Petition (C) No.136 of 2014
{(2014) 8 SCC 1}
Raj Krishna v. Pinod Kanungo AIR 1954 SC 202 at 203
Re Kerala Education Bill AIR 1958 SC 956, 1959 1 SCR 995
S.V. Joshi v. State of Karnataka (2012) 7 SCC 41

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845
ShankariPrasadhv.UOI AIR 1951 SC 458
6
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas 1976 AIR 490, 1976 SCR (1) 906
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and Writ Petition (civil) No. 13 of 2015
another v. Union of India {(2016) 5 SCC 1}
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
and Ors
The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari 1962 (2) SCR 586
Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 102
&Anr.
FOREIGN CASES
Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
BARE TEXT:
● Constitution of India, 1950
STATUTES:
● The Constitution 103rd Amendment Act, 2019
BOOKS
● D. D. BasuCommentary on The Constitution of India, (8th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworth

Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur, 2008)
● Granville Austin, Cornerstone of a Nation (Indian Constitution) 75 Oxford India (1999)
● H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, New
Delhi, 2010)
● Halsbury’s Laws of India, Vol. 35, (2nded.Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur,
2007)
● Immanuel Kant, The Moral Law: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, 42 (Herbert
James Paton eds., Psychology Press, London, UK, 2005)
7
● M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (7th ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa

Publications, Nagpur, 2016)
JOURNALS:
● All India Reporter (AIR)
● Supreme Court Reporter (SCR)
● Supreme Court Cases (SCC)
● Law Journal (LJ)
● Law Reporter (LR)
WEBSITES:
● www.indiankanoon.org/
● https://cdjlawjournal.com/latestcasesindex.php
● www.manupatra.com
● www.livelaw.in
MISCELLANEOUS:
● Constitution ( 124th Amendment) Bill, 2019

● Constituent Assembly Debates ( Volume VII)
8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent humbly submits this petition in reply to the petition filed before this Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Sindia, that it has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose
conferring jurisdiction estpotestas de public introduota, cumnecessitatejurisdicendi 1. The
respondent submits to the writ jurisdiction2 invoked by the Petitioner.
1 Meaning: Jurisdiction Is The Power For The Public Good, On The Account Of The Necessity Of Expounding The
Law.
2Article 32 in The Constitution Of Sindia,1950
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by
the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Republic of Sindia is a country in South Asia.The Constitution of Sindia was formed through a
process of formation of constituent assembly which drafted, debated, deliberated, amended and
finally formed a final Constitution of Sindia.It was drafted under the leadership of Dr. BR
Bambedkar. The Constitution was adopted finally in Nov. 1949.The word socialist was added to
the Preamble of the Sindian Constitution by the 42nd amendment act of 1976, during the
Emergency. It implies social and economic equality.
The primary objective of the reservation system in Sindia is to enhance the social and
educational status of underprivileged communities and thus improve their lives. The government
10
of Sindia believed that it was important to give benefits to people who have been historically
denied access to social and economic resources so that they have a chance to establish a
livelihood.
The Union Government tabled the Constitution (One Hundred And Twenty-Fourth Amendment)
Bill, 2019 which provided 10% additional quota for the economically weaker sections amongst
the erstwhile unreserved category students. The definition of 'economically weaker sections' will
be defined by the State from time to time. The constitutional amendment has laid down that they
will be restricted to people with household income less than 8 Lakh per annum, or those who
own agricultural land below five acres.
Several petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court of Sindia challenging the legality of
this amendment. This Hon’ble Court has clubbed all the Petitions together and has listed it for
hearing on 20.09.2019 and 21.09.2019.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE INSTANT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

COURT
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE 103rd AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 PASSED BY THE UNION

GOVERNMENT STANDS THE TEST OF BASIC STRUCTURE
11
ISSUE 3
WHETHER RESERVATION TO 10% ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS OF THE

ERSTWHILE UNRESERVED CATEGORY OF STUDENTS FALLS WITHIN THE NEXUS
OF ARTS 15 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION
12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
Whether the instant petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?
The instant petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Sindia under article 32 of the Sindian Constitution. The reasons cited by the petitioners
for the maintainability of this petition namely violation of fundamental rights, basic structure and
overruling of the precedent set by the Supreme Court and finally seeking for a prayer of
enforcing the fundamental rights will be vehemently disapproved by the counsel for respondents.
Hence the non- maintainability of this petition will be proved by establishing that the grounds
they have taken for maintainability are not satisfied.
ISSUE 2
Whether the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019 passed by the Union Government stands the test
of basic structure?
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 stands the legal scrutiny and is tenable under the
law. A Constitutional Amendment has to be challenged not under the touchstone of law and
article 13 but under the basic structure. Therefore the basic structure test laid down in M.
Nagaraj v. Union of India3,i.e Identity test and the Width test has been fulfilled by the 103 rd
Constitutional Amendment Act. Therefore it confirms with all the Constitutional principles and it
is Constitutional and this will be proved under Issue 2.
ISSUE 3
Whether reservation to 10% economically weaker sections of the erstwhile unreserved

category of students falls within the nexus of arts 15 and 16 of the constitution?
The counsel seeks to establish that the provisions of the 103 rd Constitutional Amendment Act
does fall within the ambit of articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of Sindia. The counsel has
justified the breach of the 50% ceiling limit imposed and the effects of reservation as a legal
3(2006) 8 SCC 212 Pg. 30, Coram- Y.K.SabharwalCji, K.G.Balakrishnan, S.H.Kapadia, C.K.Thakker, P.K.
Balasubramanyan
1
backing and the counsel has also adopted various precedents to imply that the intent behind the
Constitutional Amendment Act has been clearly portrayed and humbly justified.
2
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE INSTANT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

COURT
This is the Attorney General of Sindia appearing on behalf of UOS in the present matter. The
Counsel for the Respondents would like to vehemently oppose each and every contention raised
and allegations made by the learned counsel on the opposition. The instant petition which has
been filed to challenge the Constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment, Act,2019 is not
maintainable under Art.32 of the Constitution4 as there is no violation of FR or Basic structure
moreover only when there is a question of violation of FR comes can there be a prayer for
enforcing the same.
At this juncture it is pertinent to note that to sustain a challenge against a constitutional

amendment, it must be shown that the very identity of the constitution has been altered the words
of Prof. Conrad as quoted by Khanna J. in Kesavanandha Bharathi v. State of Kerala 5are useful
he said that The parliament may effect changes in detail,remould the legal expression of
underlying principles, adapt the system to the needs of changing conditions. The parliament has
thus exercised its powers under Art.368 in a lawful manner with conformity with the
constitutional principles.
The petitioners contend that this Amendment should be struck down in the light of three issues:
Violation of basic structure, Violation 19(1)(g) and Overruling the Indira Sawhney judgment.
None of the three aspects could be used in this case to strike down the amendment as being
violative of the basic structure of the constitution.
It is submitted that the newly inserted provisions of Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) are enabling
provisions for advancement of the EWS of the GC and are in fact, in conformity with the
4Constitution of Sindia, 1950

5 (AIR 1973 SC 1461) Para 1431 Pg. 769, Coram- Sikri, S.M. (Cj) Shelat, J.M., Hegde, K.S. & Grover, A.N., Ray,
A.N. & Reddy, P.J. &Palekar, D.G., Khanna, Hans Raj Mathew, K.K. & Beg, M.H., Dwivedi, S.N. Mukherjea, B.K.
Chandrachud, Y.V.
3
principle of Reservation and Affirmative action, which are the touchstones of protection of
equality of citizens which in turn is a part of basic structure of the constitution and that 19(1)(g)
is in no way abrogated but is just abridged by this amendment both of these will be proved in
detail under Issue II. Also it is submitted that the economic criteria as a basis for reservation and
the addition made to 50% ceiling will be justified and established in Issue III.
We humbly also would like to submit that Under Article 141 of the Constitution6 the
pronouncement of this Court is the law of the land. It is that law which is sought to be changed
by the impugned constitutional amendments that inserts merely an enabling provision into the
Constitution and this amendment does not overrule the decisions of this Court.7
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE 103rd AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 PASSED BY THE UNION

GOVERNMENT STANDS THE TEST OF BASIC STRUCTURE
The answer is affirmative. The Attorney General who is the counsel for the respondents in this
instant petition humbly submits before this court that the 103 rd Amendment Act, 2019 that seeks
to make a 10% reservation in matters of education and employment to the EWS of the erstwhile
unreserved general category and which also allows the State to define EWS from time to time on
the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage does not in any way
violate the basic structure of this Constitution and hence it is Constitutionally valid. The same
will be proved under this issue.
2.1 ) Validity of a constitutional amendment:
Counsel humbly submits that after a plethora of landmark cases starting from:

7Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI Writ Petition (civil) 265 of 2006 Para 102, Coram-Dr. ArijitPasayat, C.K.Thakker
4
ShankariPrasadhv.UOI8 , Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 9 which was over ruled in

Golaknath v. State of Punjab 10 which was again prospectively overruled in
KesavanandhaBharathi v. State of Kerala 11 by virtue of which 24th Amendment to the
constitution inserted Clause 4 to Art. 13 and Clause 3 to Art. 368 which made that amendments
made under Art. 368 of the Constitution 12 are not LAW under Art. 13 and hence its validity
cannot be questioned against the touchstone of Art. 13(2) but only against the touchstone of
Basic Structure and the same was upheld by this Court.
2.2)This takes us to the question of whether 103 rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 is
violating the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
It is pertinent to note that, This Hon’ble court out of 72 Constitution Amendment Acts enacted
since 1973 has invoked the “basic structure” doctrine to strike down only seven of them—mostly
in cases where the power of judicial review or the independence of the judiciary was threatened
by a Constitutional amendment. Also only once this Court has struck down the entire amendment
which is the 99th Amendment Act, 2014 in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record -
Association and another v. Union of India13 as it prima facie affected the Independence of
Judiciary.
In Minerva Mills v. UOI 14the 42nd constitutional amendment made after the, Indira Gandhi v.
Raj Narain15case was challenged. Sections 4 and 55 of the Act was struck down in a 4:1 ratio as
they made Constitutional Amendments unquestionable in courts of law and separated Articles14
and 19 from Article 31-C. This was seen as violation of basic structure and hence struck down as
8 (AIR 1951 SC 458), Coram-Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Sastri, M. Patanjali, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, SudhiRanjan, Aiyar,
N. Chandrasekhara
9(AIR 1965 SC 845), Coram- Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar,
Mudholkar, J.R.
10(AIR 1967 SC 1643), Coram-Rao, K. SubbaWanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M. & Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M.
&Bachawat, R.S., Ramaswami, V. &Shelat, J.M., Bhargava, Vishishtha&Mitter, G.K. &Vaidyialingam, C.A.
11 (AIR 1973 SC 1461), Coram- Sikri, S.M. (Cj) Shelat, J.M., Hegde, K.S. & Grover, A.N., Ray, A.N. & Reddy,
P.J. &Palekar, D.G., Khanna, Hans Raj Mathew, K.K. & Beg, M.H., Dwivedi, S.N. Mukherjea, B.K. Chandrachud,
Y.V.
12Constitution of Sindia,1950
13 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2015, Pg.1010Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian
Joseph, Adarsh Kumar Goel
14(AIR 1980 SC 1789), Coram- Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj), Bhagwati, P.N., Gupta, A.C., Untwalia, N.L., Kailasam,
P.S.
15 (AIR 1975 SC 2299),Coram-A.N. Ray (Cj), H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud
5
the court held that in the process of achieving the goals in Part IV the Rights in Part III cannot be
abrogated (Done away with) but can be abridged.
Here it is pertinent to note that the court held that in the view of public interest Fundamental
rights can be abridged (abridgment can again be a part of basic structure) that is changed without
losing its essence but not abrogated. In the instant case the FR are abridged by way of the
Amendment in public/Larger interest and are not abrogated completely.
2.3)Tests that a Constitutional Amendment has to pass in order to be valid:
16
This court in the case of M. Nagaraj v. UOI and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu 17, has
laid down two tests which any constitutional amendment should satisfy in order to be held
constitutional. They are the Identity test and Width test.
2.3.1) Identity Test:
This Instant Constitutional Amendment has not in any way taken away the identity of the
Constitution. The Identity in question here is Art. 14,15,16 and 19(1)(g).
Art. 14 enshrines two concepts namely “equality before law” which prohibits discrimination and
is a negative concept and “equal protection of laws” which allows protective discrimination to
achieve equality. Hence the Art.emphasis on equals being treated equally and unequals,
unequally.
In the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India 18, Desai J held that Art. 14 prohibits class
legislation but allows reasonable classification.
19
In the case of Mohd. HanifQureshi and others v. State of Bihar and others , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held:
2.3.2) The twin test which any classification should satisfy in order to be called a
reasonable classification is:
16(2006)8SCC212Pg. 30, Coram- Y.K.SabharwalCji, K.G.Balakrishnan, S.H.Kapadia, C.K.Thakker, P.K.

Balasubramanyan
17(2007) 2 SCC 1, Coram-Y.K. Sabharwal Singh, S.H. KapadiaThakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan Jain
18 AIR 1983 SC 130, Coram- Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj), Tulzapurkar, V.D., Desai, D.A., Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J),
Islam, Baharul (J)
19 AIR 1958 SC 731 Para 15 and 16, Coram- Das, SudhiRanjan (Cj), Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Das, S.K.,
Gajendragadkar, P.B., Bose, Vivian
6
a. the classification must be founded on an intelligible different which distinguishes

persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and
b. such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the statute in question.
The instant classification of the EWS for the 10% reservation does meet the twin test and it will
be explained hereunder.
● First of all the 10% reservation is made for the EWS of the erstwhile unreserved category
of people who do not stand in equal footing with any other EWS in the SC/ST.OBC as
they are both socially, educationally and economically backward. Also treating the
economically weaker section on par with the socially educationally and economically
forward category of people will result in treating unequals equally which is against the
concept of Equality.
● More over this classification aims to contribute to the secular goals enshrined in the
Constitution. Poverty, however, is a secular criteria" and it cuts across communities and
religions.
● Using purely economic criteria would lighten the identification load. The idea that poor
Brahmins may also be eligible for the benefits of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is too
grotesque even to be considered as they are not “socially backward”, thus they do not
receive the benefit. But can one call a Brahmin sweeper, poor by occupation, socially
forward? To do so would be a stretch.
Also this classification has a strong nexus with the object that is sought to achieve i.e; the goals
enshrined in the Preamble and Art 46 and 38. This is so because as the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the bill in itself says that the economically weaker sections of citizens have largely
remained excluded from attending the higher educational institutions and public employment on
account of their financial incapacity to compete with the persons who are economically more
privileged. Thus to bridge the gap this benefit of 10 % has been given to them in specific.
2.3.3) Whether Article 19(1)(g) is violated
7
In order to neutralize the position created by this Court in State of Madras v.

ChampakamDorairajan20Art. 15(4) wasinserted by way of First Amendment Act, 1951. This
Art.enabled the State to make provisions for the advancement of SCs/STs/OBCs. However
when in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors 21 decided by a 11
judge bench in para 53 and 68 held that the autonomy of private unaided institutions will not be
affected if a small percentage of students belonging to weaker and backward sections of the
society were granted reservation. Later in in Islamic Academy of Education &Anr.v. State of
Karnataka &Ors22. a five-Judge Bench of this Court approved the same. However this did not
find favour with a seven-Judge Bench of this Court in P.A. Inamdar&Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra &Ors23 where such state interference was held unreasonable and not regulatory
under 19(6). The above rulings necessitated the enactment of The Constitution (Ninety-Third
Amendment) Act, 2005 by inserting Article 15(5) through which now became the enabling
power conferred on the Parliament.
This Amendment was challenged in the case of Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union
of India &Anr.24and in Pramathi Educational and Cultural Trust v. UOI25.The Court after
much debate on the point declared (Para 29 and 47) the Art. 15(5) constitutionally valid and held
that it did not change the identity of Pvt . Educational Institutions under 19(1)(g).26
Thus when a similar Article was declared not violative of Article 19(1)(g) there is no doubt that
Article 15(6) and 16(6) inserted by the 103rd Amendment, also do not violate 19(1)(g).
Hence this Amendment does not change the identity of this constitution in any manner.
2.4) Width Test is complied with:
20AIR 1951 SC 226, Coram-Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Sastri, M. Patanjali, Mahajan, Mehr Chand,
Mukherjea, B.K. & Das, S. R. Bose, Vivian
21 (2002) 8 SCC 481, Coram-Quadri, S.S.M. (J), Pal, Ruma (J), Variava, S.N. (J), Balakrishnan, K.G. (J) Reddi,
P.V. (J), Bhan, Ashok (J) Pasayat, Arijit (J)
22(2003) 6 SCC 697, Coram- V. N.[ Khare]Cji, S. N. Variava, K. G. Balakrishnan, ArijitPasayat, S.B. Sinha
23(2005) 6 SCC 537, Coram- Cji R.C. Kumar, G.P. Mathur, TarunChatterjee, P.K. Balasubramanyan
24(2012) 6 SCC 102, Coram- S.H. Kapadia, K.S. Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar
25 WRIT PETITION (C) No.136 OF 2014
26Pramathi Educational and Cultural Trust v. UOI Para 19 and 47
8
The validity The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 which inserted 15(5) was
challenged on the basis of Width Test in the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI27.
This said clause was an enabling provision and empowered the State to make special provisions
for the advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes in matters of education
and this had an effect on the state and private institutions. The court upheld the amendment and
declared that it survived the Basic structure test.28
The newly inserted articles namely 15(6) and 16(6) stand on an equal footing with 15(5) the only
difference is that the former is for EWS and the later was for SEBC. Since the basis of
classification has now been explained and justified these Articles will also automatically survive
the basic structure test.
The compelling reasons form part of the ‘width test’ as laid by this court in M. Nagarj v UOI29.
Thus the Compelling reason to make a reservation under this 15(6) and 16(6) will be
“Economical Backwardness”. The impugned constitutional amendments are enabling in nature.
They leave it to the States to provide for reservation. If the State has quantifiable data to show
backwardness and inadequacy then the State can make reservations. If the State concerned fails
to identify and measure backwardness, inadequacy and overall administrative efficiency then in
that event the provision for reservation would be invalid. These amendments do not alter the
structure of Articles 14, 15 and 16 (equity code). We may once again repeat that equality is not
violated by mere conferment of power but it is breached by arbitrary exercise of the power
conferred.
Lets’ leave aside the legal perspective for a minute and take into consideration a hypothetical
situation. Let’s say there are 20 students belonging to the GC in a country out of which 15
belong to EWS and the remaining 5 are socially educationally and economically forward. The
later will mostly fare well in exams because they could afford quality books, materials, tuitions
etc. but the former due to lack of such factors will find it hard to make it to the cut off that is set
really high for a GC.
27Writ Petition (civil) 265 of 2006, Coram-Dr. ArijitPasayat, C.K.Thakker

28Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI, Para 102 and 107, Coram-Dr. ArijitPasayat, C.K.Thakker
29(2006) 8 SCC 212 pg. ,Coram- Y.K.SabharwalCji, K.G.Balakrishnan, S.H.Kapadia, C.K.Thakker, P.K.
Balasubramanyan
9
The 15 will not only be competing with the 5 forward candidates but also will have a tough battle
for seats as the reserved candidates who were meritorious start occupying the seats set for GC.
Hence here the compelling reason for reservation will be that of “economic weakness” due to
which getting into an institution becomes difficult. On one hand we do have positive
discrimination for the SEBC and on the other there is the well advanced category of the GC who
is left in the middle to suffer is the EWS of the GC. Therefore the 10% reservation stands as an
up liftment factor and will motivate them to study as now they will be competing with like
fellowmates therefore now they stand a better chance of getting a seat.
2.5) Statistical and Empirical data showing the Extra-Ordinary reasons behind this
Amendment.
Subsequent to the decision of this Hon’ble Court in IndraSawhney v. Union of India30, the
Government appointed an Expert Committee to recommend the criteria for exclusion of the
creamy layer.
The committee recommended that persons having gross annual income of Rs. 1.00 Lakh and
above or possessing wealth above the exemption limit as prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a
period of 3 consecutive years shall be excluded from the benefit of reservation. The Government
accepted the recommendation31At present is at Rs. 8.00 lakh per annum and the Wealth Tax Act
is not in force at present.
This takes us to the question of, when people earning less that 8L p.a in the reserved category are
entitled to reservation benefits why can’t the others who earn the same in the unreserved get the
reservation benefits. Is it just because they do not have a cast certificate in their favour?
The government later did set up the NCEBC of the Constitution and was headed by Chairman
Maj. Gen. (Retd.) S.R. Sinho, to suggest the criteria for identification for economically backward
classes (EBC) as well as to recommend welfare measures and quantum of reservation in
education and Government employment to the extent as appropriate.
In its report dated 2.07.2010 which relied on the basis of NSSO (National Sample Survey Office)
Estimates, it concluded that BPL% was high amongst the General category, being 18.2% out of
30 1992Supp(3) SCC 217, AIR 1993 SC 477,Coram- M Kania, M Venkatachaliah, S R Pandian, . T Ahmadi, K
Singh, P Sawant, R Sahai, B J Reddy
31 O.M. dated 08.09.1993
10
the 30%. The NSSO (2004-05) and NFHS (National Family Health Survey) (1998-99) data
suggest that there is a need to make provisions similar to the backward classes for the
economically weaker sections.
Therefore in the light of above arguments submitted by the State it is prayed before this court to
declare that the instant Amendment is in consonance with the Basic Structure and is thus
constitutionally valid. The Constitution of Sindia is not intended to be static. It is by its very
nature dynamic. It is a living and organic thing. It is an instrument which has greatest value to be
construed.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER RESERVATION TO 10 % ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS OF

THE ERSTWHILE UNRESERVED CATEGORY OF STUDENTS FALLS WITHIN THE
NEXUS OF ARTICLES 15 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION
The issue of EWS Reservation involved in the present petition has far reaching consequences
and in essence poses several questions of seminal importance. The complexity can be gauged
from the fact that on one hand the petitioners have questioned the logic of providing
reservations/quotas for a class of people whom they described as "unidentifiable" or
"undetermined" while the respondents plead to justify their action by labelling them as measures
taken for upliftment of vast majority of people who have suffered social humiliation and sneer
for the economic backwardness. Thus, the counsel for the respondents seeks to vehemently
remove the nuances of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act by establishing the provisions of
law and of fact in consonance with the Constitution of Sindia.
3.1)Constituent Assembly debates32 in this Regard:
(3.1.1) The Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded
Areas—a committee appointed by the constituent assembly—recommended reservation for
Scheduled Castes in the legislatures, on 30 August 1947, and reaffirmed its view before the
assembly when the question arose again in May 1949.
(3.1.2) KT Shah33 critiqued the proposed amendment’s reliance on social and educational—and
not economic—criteria to determine backwardness. Shah also questioned categorising “classes
32 Volume 7, Art 10 (Now existent Art 16)., 30th November 1948.
33An advocate and an economist and a member of the Advisory Committee.
11
of citizens” and not individual citizens as beneficiaries. He noted that provisions for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens would be of no use to
India’s impoverished citizens, who had seen little progress to “a normal reasonable standard of
living and working” since the promulgation of the constitution.
The Counsel relies on the views of eminent advisory committees to establish the intent of the
legislature and to focus on the dynamics of the Constitution34.
3.2)Doctrine of Harmonious Construction: A statute must be read as a whole and one

provision of the Act must be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as
to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. Such a construction has the merit of
avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within the section or between a section or other
parts of the statute35. Thus, the Counsel pleads that there is no inconsistency or repugnancy in the
provisions of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act.
3.3)Directive Principles of State Policy in this Regard:

(3.3.1) It has been stated36 that the Act in consonance with Art 46 of the Constitution which
enjoins that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of
the weaker sections of the people.
(3.3.2) In cases ofRe Kerala Education Bill37, Minerva Mills v. UOI38, BandhuaMuktiMorcha
v. UOI39, It has been emphasised that Fundamental Rights and DPSP must be read together so
that the harmony and balance between fundamental rights and the directive principles is an
essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution. Both the fundamental and directive
principles of the state policy are embodying the philosophy of our constitution, the philosophy of
justice social economic and political. They are the two wheels of the chariot as an aid to make
social and economic democracy a truism.
3.4)Economic Criteria- A sole Basis for Reservation:
34Sindian Constitution,1950.
35Raj Krishna v. PinodKanungo, AIR 1954 SC 202 at 203. Coram- Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K.,
Das, SudhiRanjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam
36 Statement of Objects and Reasons as elucidated in the 124th Constitution Amendment Bill,2019.
37In Re The Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956, 1959 1 SCR 995., Coram- S Das, B S Kapur, Bhagwati, S
Das, J Imam, V Aiyar
38Minerva Mills v. UOIAIR 1980 SC 1789.,Coram- Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj), Bhagwati, P.N., Gupta, A.C.,
Untwalia, N.L., Kailasam, P.S.
39BandhuaMuktiMorcha v. UOI1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67., Coram- Bhagwati, P.N
12
(3.4.1) Economic criteria can be considered to be a relevant factor for determination of social
and educational backwardness. Reference may be made to Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of
India40, wherein it was held: “Upon expiry of the time-limit, the criteria for identifying OBCs
should only be economic in nature because our ultimate aim is to establish a casteless and
classless society.
(3.4.2) In K.C.Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka 41, Chinnappa Reddy, J. departs from Desai,
J. use of economic criteria as the sole means of identification. Nevertheless, he recognises that
“… attainment of economic equality is the final and only solution to the besetting problems and
The National Commission for Backward Classes aside, I have set out to eventually install a
system that only takes cognizance of economic criteria. Using purely economic criteria would
lighten the identification load, as ascertaining caste would no longer be required.… If economic
reservation were limited to a reasonable number, it could be upheld”.
3.5)Applicability of IndraSawhney- Challenged:
(3.5.1)It is submitted that the conclusions drawn in IndraSawhney v. UOI42 are inapplicable to
the present case as the said judgment was delivered while determining the constitutional validity
of certain Office Memorandums issued by the Government of India in the year 1990, which
provided for reservations for the backward classes of citizens in services under the State.
(3.5.2) The present challenge, however, is in relation to the validity of a constitutional

amendment made wherein Art 15(6) and Art 16(6) have been inserted, which did not exist on the
book when Indra Sawhney was delivered. Indra Sawhney and the findings therein can therefore
have no application thereafter.
(3.5.3) That in view of the above, this Hon’ble Court in IndraSawhney did not have the
opportunity to deliberate or hold in relation to the constitutional amendment, whereby the new
criteria of ‘economically weaker sections of the society’ has been introduced. The decision was
therefore purely on the anvil of the yardsticks available under Art 16 (4) and Art 16 (1), which
are distinct from Art 15(6) and Art 16 (6) and will have to, therefore, be tested independently.
40Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI, (2008) 6 SCC 1., Coram-Dr. ArijitPasayat, C.K. Thakker
41Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 1985 AIR 1495, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 352., Coram- Chandrachud, Y.V.
((Cj), Desai, D.A., Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Sen, A.P. (J), Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)
42IndraSawhney v, UOI, AIR 1993 SC 477. Coram- M Kania, M Venkatachaliah, S R Pandian, . T Ahmadi, K
Singh, P Sawant, R Sahai, B J Reddy
13
(3.5.4) Furthermore, Art 16 (4) and Art 16 (6) are distinct as Art 16 (4) deals with backwardness
whilst Art 16(6) deals with economically weaker sections of the society.
(3.5.5) That in order to provide reservation to Economically Weaker Sections Without disturbing
the existing reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs, the constitutional amendment has provided for
a maximum of 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections in addition to the existing
reservations.
(3.5.6) Justice Sawant was part of the nine-judge constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice
M N Venkatachaliah in the IndraSawhney v. Union of India 43 case, which settled the legal
position on reservations. The 6:3 majority verdict held that reservation, being an extreme form of
protective measure or affirmative action, should be confined to a minority of seats. Justice
Sawant, who had concurred with the majority view, had however observed that that in
“extraordinary reasons”, the 50 per cent cap “may be exceeded”.
3.6)Breach of the 50% Ceiling Rule:
(3.6.1) It is humbly submitted that the limit of 50% is only applicable to reservation made under
Art 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) and does not apply to Art 15(6).
(3.6.2) That, reference must be made to the decision of this Hon’ble Court in S.V. Joshi vs. State
of Karnataka44, where the question that arose for deliberation was whether the quantum of
reservation provided for in Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the
Services under the State) Act, 1993, being over 50%, was valid or not.
(3.6.2.1) Holding for the bench, Kapadia J. ordered that Subsequent to the filing of the above
writ petitions, Arts 15 and 16 of the Constitution have been amended vide the Constitution
(Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, and the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000,
respectively, which Amendment Acts have been the subject-matter of subsequent decisions of
this Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India 45and Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India 46 in
43Supra FootNote 42.

44S.V. Joshi v. State of Karnataka (2012) 7 SCC 41
45M. Nagaraj v. UOI (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC 1013., Coram- Y.K.SabharwalCji, K.G.Balakrishnan,
S.H.Kapadia, C.K.Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan
46Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI (2008) 6 SCC 1 (Supra Footnote 40)
14
which, inter alia, it has been laid down that if a State wants to exceed fifty per cent reservation,
then it is required to base its decision on the quantifiable data. In the present case, this exercise
has not been done.
In the case Public Spirited Organisations v. UOI, it has been verifiably subjected that the data has
been quantifiably submitted.
3.7)Arguments in the Supreme Court on the current 10% reservations47.
(3.7.1) Attorney General KK Venugopal contended that the 50% limit on reservations is not
mandatory, by citing IndraSawhney v. UOI48.
(3.7.2) He stated that reservation based on economic criteria alone has already been held valid in
a binding judgment of the court, by citing Society for Unaided Private Schools Rajasthan v.
UOI49. He argued that as a welfare state with 200 million poor people, the Indian State had an
obligation to give effect to the Preamble’s goals of economic justice and equality of opportunity,
as well as the directive principles of state policy in Arts 45 and 46 of the Constitution. He further
added that there was no reason to refer the matter to a larger bench as every matter of grave
effect on Art 14 has already been settled by the Supreme Court.
(3.7.3) Justice Bobde also asked for the Attorney General’s response to the argument that the
draft Constitution never provided for reservations other than to the backward classes. Attorney
General KK Venugopal replied that Art 21A of the Constitution provides 25% reservation in
primary education for children belonging to poor families.
(3.7.4) He then drew the court’s attention to Art 21A of the Constitution and the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Reading out sections 2 and 12 of the Act,
he demonstrated that reservations had been made for the poor in education only on the basis of
economic criteria and income of parents alone.
47JanhitAbhiyan v. UOI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 55/2019, Case Currently Pending in the Supreme Court
regarding the 10% Reservation Act. Arguments by the Attorney General as elucidated in the Counter Affidavit filed
by Union of India.https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/reservations-for-economically-weaker-sections/undefined
last accessed 07-09-2019.
48 Supra FootNote 42.
49(2012) 6 SCC 102, Coram- S.H. Kapadia, K.S. Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar
15
3.8)Principle of Strict Scrutiny: The Counsel for petitioners appear to bind the principles of
strict scrutiny and narrow tailoring., as the petitioners seek that the provisions of Arts 15(5) and
16(4) be binded literally and no dynamism to be made.
(3.8.1) The precise term "strict scrutiny" was used by the Court for the first time in Skinner v.
Oklahoma50., upheld in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI51, Holding that the term did violate the
14th amendment , Justice Douglas observed: "Strict scrutiny of the classification which a State
makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly or otherwise invidious discriminations
are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guarantee of just
and equal laws."
(3.8.2) It needs to be clarified that the expression 'strict scrutiny' has also been used by the Indian
Courts in Narendra Kumar v. UOI52but it appears to have been used in different context. What
really appears to be the intention for the use of the expression is "careful and deeper scrutiny"
and not in the sense of strict scrutiny of the provisions as is prevalent in the American
jurisprudence, which is sought to be applied to the issue in question in the case Public Spirited
Organisations v. UOI.
3.9)Manifold Reach of Reservation: In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas'scase53 , Danger of

reservation is said to be threefold.
(3.9.1) The very concept of a class denotes a number of persons having certain common traits
which distinguish them from the others. In a backward class under Art 16, if the connecting link
is the social backwardness, it should broadly be the same in a given class. If some of the
members are far too advanced socially (which in the context, necessarily means economically
and, may also mean educationally) the connecting thread between them and the remaining class
snaps.
50Skinner v. Oklahoma316 U.S. 535 (1942)., Coram- Justice Douglas, Justice Roberts, Justice Black, Justice Reed,
Justice Frankfurter, Justice Murphy, Justice Brynes, Justice Stone, Justice Jackson.
51 Supra Footnote 40.
52Narendra Kumar v. UOI., 1960 (2) SCR 375., Coram- Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Imam, Syed Jaffer, Kapur,
J.L., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das
53State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, 1976 AIR 490, 1976 SCR (1) 906., Page: 363., Coram- Ray, A.N. (Cj), Khanna,
Hans Raj, Mathew, KuttyilKurien, Beg, M.H. &Krishnaiyer, V.R., Gupta, A.C. &Fazalali, S.M.
16
While the income of a person can be taken as a measure of his social advancement, the limit to
be prescribed should not be such as to result in taking away with one hand what is given with the
other. The income limit must be such as to mean and signify social advancement. At the same
time, it must be recognised that there are certain positions, the occupants of which can be treated
as socially advanced without any further enquiry.
Say, if a member of a designated backward class becomes a member of IAS or IPS or any other
All India Service, his status is society (social status) rises; he is no longer socially disadvantaged.
His children get full opportunity to realize their potential. They are in no way handicapped in the
race of life. And that is why the counsel seeks to establish economic criteria for reservation so as
to be able to help the needy and deserving.
(3.10) Caste only cannot be the basis for reservation. Reservation can be for a backward class
citizen of a particular caste. Therefore, from that caste, the creamy layer and the non- backward
class of citizens are to be excluded. If the caste is to be taken into consideration then for finding
out the socially and economically backward class, the creamy layer of the caste is to be
eliminated for granting benefit of reservation, because that creamy layer cannot be termed as
socially and economically backward. These questions are exhaustively dealt with by a nine-
Judge Bench of this Court in IndraSawhney v. UOI54and it has been specially held that "only
caste" cannot be the basis for reservation.
In Chitralekhav. State of Mysore,55 an order saying that a family whose income was less than
Rs. 1200 per year and followed such occupation as agriculture, petty business, inferior services,
crafts, etc would be treated as backward, was declared valid though caste as a criteria was totally
ignored for the purpose. It was held that identification of backward classes on the basis of
occupation-cum-income, without reference to caste is not bad and would not offend Art. 15(4).
54Supra Foot Note 42.

55Chitralekha v. State of Mysore.,1964 AIR 1823, 1964 SCR (6) 368, Coram- Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj),
Subbarao, K., Dayal, Raghubar, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.
17
3.11)Validity of Art 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution 56: Analysis of the Pramathi
Educational Centre v. UOI57 case: The Constitutional validity and the scope of Arts 15 and 16
were tested in the Hon’ble Apex Court.
(3.11.1)The object of clause (5) of Art 15 is to enable the State to give equal opportunity to
socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or to the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes to study in all educational institutions other than minority educational
institutions referred in clause (1) of Art 30 of the Constitution.
(3.11.2) These provisions were made to ensure that every citizen irrespective of his religion,
race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, is given the equal treatment by the State and he has
equal access to public places. Despite these provisions in Art 15 of the Constitution 58 as
originally adopted, some classes of citizens, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have
remained socially and educationally backward and have also not been able to access educational
institutions for the purpose of advancement.
To amplify the provisions of Art 15 of the Constitution as originally adopted and to provide
equal opportunity in educational institutions, clause (5) has been inserted in Art 15 by the
constitutional amendment made by the Parliament by the Ninety-Third Amendment Act, 2005.
(3.11.3) As the object of clause (5) of Art 15 of the Constitution is to provide equal opportunity
to a large number of students belonging to the socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes to study in educational institutions
and equality of opportunity is also the object of clauses (1)and (2) of Art 15 of the Constitution,
cannot hold that clause (5) of Art 15 of the Constitution is an exception or a proviso overriding
Art 15 of the Constitution, but an enabling provision to make equality of opportunity promised in
the Preamble in the Constitutiona reality.
56 Constitution of Sindia, 1950

57Pramathi Educational and Cultural Trust v. UOI (2014) 8 SCC 1., Coram- R.M. Lodha, A.K. Patnaik,
SudhansuJyotiMukhopadhaya, DipakMisra, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla
18
(3.11.4) For this view, the Hon’ble Court are supported by the majority judgment of this Court in
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas59 in which this Court has held that clause (4) of Art 16 of the
Constitution which has opening words similar to the opening words in clause (5) of Art 15 is not
an exception or a proviso to Art 16 , but is a provision intended to give equality of opportunity to
backward classes of citizens in matters of public employment. Similarly, in IndraSawhney v.
UOI60, the Court following the majority held that clause (4) of Art 16 was not an exception to
clause (1) of Art 16, but is an enabling provision to give effect to te equality of opportunity in
matters of public employment. These two authorities have also been cited by K.G. Balakrishnan,
CJ., in his judgment in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI61 to hold that clause (5) of Art 15 of the
Constitution is not an exception to clause (1) of Art 15, but may be taken as an enabling
provision to carry out the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity. It is to be taken that
the newly inserted Arts as well, are to be construed accordingly.
(3.11.5) Whilst we are dealing with this question, it would be relevant to add to that the
provisions of Art 15 are similar to those of Art 16which fell to be considered in the case of The
General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari 62In that case, the majority decision of this
Court held that the power of reservation which is conferred on the State under Art 16 can be
exercised by the State in a proper case not only by providing for reservation of appointments, but
also by providing for reservation of selection posts. This conclusion was reached on the basis
that it served to give effect to the intention of the Constitution makers to make adequate
safeguards for the advancement of Backward Classes and to secure their adequate representation
in the Services.
The judgment shows that the only point which was raised for the decision of this Court in that
case was whether the reservation made was outside Art 16(4) and that posed the bare question
about the construction of Art 16(4). The propriety, the reasonableness or the wisdom of the
impugned order was not questioned because it was not the respondent's case that if the order was
justified under Art 16(4), it was a fraud on the Constitution.
59 Supra FootNote 53.

60Supra FootNote 42.
61Supra Foot Note 40.
62The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari(1962 (2) SCR 586), Coram- Gajendragadkar, P.B.,
Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala
19
Even so, it was pointed out in the judgment that the efficiency of administration is of such a
paramount importance that it would be unwise and impermissible to make any reservation at the
cost of efficiency of administration.
Thus, it is impediment to elucidate that the Reservation to the erstwhile unreserved category
students and the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 is constitutionally valid.
20
PRAYER
Wherefore in the lights of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to adjudge and
declare:
● That the present writ petition be quashed with order as to costs.
● That the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act be considered constitutionally valid.
And pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of
the given case and thus render justice.
The counsel pleads before this Hon’ble Court to bind “Sacramentumhabet in se trescomites,
veritatem, justitiametjudicium; veritashabendaest in jurato, justitia et judicium in judice 63”.
And for this act of kindness and justice the Respondents shall be duty bound and forever pray.
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS
63 An oath has in it three components,-truth, justice, and judgment; truth in the party swearing; justice and
judgment in the judge administeringthe oath.
21

PSOL 1 - Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSOL 1 - Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSOL 1 - Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

TEAM CODE – PSOL 1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

W.P. No. /2019

PUBLIC SPIRITED PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS & OTHERS………………PETITIONERS

ON SUBMISSION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

UNDER ART.32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA

● TABLE OF CONTENTThe VDR Bill, 2012 is very ambigauthority DEFINITION

i. Validity of a constitutional amendment

i. Constituent Assembly debatesin this Regard

AIR : All India Report

BPL : Below Poverty Line

DPSP : Directive Principles of State Policy

EBC : Economically Backward Class

EWP : Economically Weaker Person

EWS : Economically Weaker Sections

IAS : Indian Administrative Service

IPS : Indian Police Service

NCEBC : National Commission for Economically Backward Class

NFHS : National Family Health Survey

NGO : Non-Governmental Organisation

NSSO : National Sample Survey Office

OBC : Other Backward Classes

p.a : Per annum

PIL : Public Interest Litigation

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

SCR : Supreme Court Reporter

SEBC : Socially and Educationally Backward Classes

SOP : Separation of Powers

Supp/ Supl : Supplement

u/s : Under Section

UOI : Union of India

UOS : Union of Sindia

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI Writ Petition (civil) 265 of 2006

Chitralekhav. State of Mysore 1964 AIR 1823, 1964 SCR (6) 368

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299

S.V. Joshi v. State of Karnataka (2012) 7 SCC 41

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226

Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

● Constitution of India, 1950

● The Constitution 103rd Amendment Act, 2019

● D. D. BasuCommentary on The Constitution of India, (8th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworth

● M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (7th ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa

● All India Reporter (AIR)

● Supreme Court Reporter (SCR)

● Supreme Court Cases (SCC)

● Law Journal (LJ)

● Law Reporter (LR)

● Constitution ( 124th Amendment) Bill, 2019

WHETHER THE INSTANT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

WHETHER THE 103rd AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 PASSED BY THE UNION

WHETHER RESERVATION TO 10% ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS OF THE

Whether the instant petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?

Whether reservation to 10% economically weaker sections of the erstwhile unreserved

WHETHER THE INSTANT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE

At this juncture it is pertinent to note that to sustain a challenge against a constitutional

4Constitution of Sindia, 1950

WHETHER THE 103rd AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 PASSED BY THE UNION

2.1 ) Validity of a constitutional amendment: