A constitution bench of the Supreme Court is set to deliver its judgment on a batch of pleas challenging the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment that grants 10 percent reservation to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) among the forward castes.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala will pronounce the verdict at 10.30 am.The petitions, filed by NGOs Janhit Abhiyan and Youth for Equality, among others, had challenged the amendment on the ground that economic classification cannot be the sole basis for reservation.The Amendment Act provides for reservation of 10 per cent seats in public and private educational institutions, and in public employment, for the “economically weaker sections” of citizens other than Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes.Follow our day-wise coverage of the hearings:Day 1Day 2Day 3Day 4Day 5Day 6Day 7[Read a compilation of the written submission in the case here]Live updates from the pronouncement of judgment below..Bench assembles..CJI UU Lalit: There are four judgments to be delivered..Justice Dinesh Maheshwari: The 3 major points for determination: Whether reservation is a tool for inclusion of social and economically backward into mainstream and if it violates basic structure, whether exclusion of classes from getting EWS violates basic structure..Justice Dinesh Maheshwari: We have dealt with affirmative action of equality, whether economic criteria as sole basis for economic quota breaches basic structure...Justice Dinesh Maheshwari: The conclusions are: reservation is an instrument of affirmative action so as to ensure all inclusive march towards goals of egalitarian society, it is a means of inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged..Justice Dinesh Maheshwari: reservation on economic basis DOES NOT violate basic structure or constitution of India. .Justice Dinesh Maheshwari: EWS reservation does not violate the equality code or violate essential feature of constitution and breach of 50 per cent does not violate basic structure as the ceiling limit is here only for 16(4) and (5)..Justice Maheshwari: EWS amendment does not violate the basic structure as it is based in economic criteria, state forming special provision for EWS quota does not violate the basic structure..Justice Bela Trivedi: Legislature understands the needs of people and it is aware of the economic exclusion of people from reservation. I concur with Justice Maheshwari..Justice Trivedi: This amendment enabling state to make special provision for other than SC ST should be treated as affirmative action by the parliament. The amendment as a separate class is a reasonable classification..Justice Trivedi: They cannot be treated at par with citizens of general category. Such classification does not violate the equality code..Justice Trivedi: What is visualised in preamble and what is there in part 3 and 4, it cannot be called as violative of the basic structure. The identity test as propounded in Keshavannanda Bharthi is not violated..Justice Trivedi: It cannot be gainsaid that age old caste system in India led to introduction of reservations and so that SC ST get level playing field. At end of 75 years we need to take a re-look at reservations in general in spirit of transformative constitutionalism..Justice JB Pardiwala: I concur with Justices Maheshwari and Trivedi, I have UPHELD the EWS amendment..Justice JB Pardiwala: Reservation cannot be allowed to become a vested interest. It is to end social and economic inequality. The movement started 7 decades back and long standing development and education has helped in minimising the gap..Justice JB Pardiwala: The ones who have moved ahead should be removed from backward classes so that ones in need can be helped. The ways to determine backward classes need a re- look so that ways are relevant in today's time..Justice JB Pardiwala: RESERVATION SHOULD NOT CONTINUE FOR INDEFINITE TIME SO THAT IT BECOMES A VESTED INTEREST. Finally I uphold the EWS amendment..Justice Ravindra Bhat dissents: Our Constitution does not permit exclusion and this amendment undermines the fabric of social justice and thereby the basic structure..Justice Bhat: This amendment is deluding us to believe that those getting social and backward class benefit is somehow better placed. This court has held that 16(1) and (4) are facets of same equality principle..Justice Bhat: This amendment bestowing double benefits is incorrect. This exclusion violates non discriminatory and no exclusionary facet of the equality code..Justice Bhat: Economic destitution, economic backwardness is backbone of this amendment and on this account amendment is constitutionally indefeasible. However, excluding the classes such as SC ST OBC is not constitutionally permissible..Justice Bhat: This amendment strikes at the heart of the equality code which is the core of the Constitution. .Justice Bhat: The Sinho commission was setup to determine economic backwardness and it is based on census of 2001. It says 38 per cent of total SC population and 48 per cent of total ST population was below poverty line. Bulk of economically deprived are these..Justice Bhat: Reservation as a concept cannot be ruled out in private institutes as they constitute material resources of the country and thus, state has vital interest in the same unlike shareholders of a company..Justice Bhat: For question 1 the amendment is valid but for question 2 and 3, the amendment has to go..Justice Bhat: Permitting breach of 50 per cent rule becomes a great way for further infractions which would result in compartmentalisation and then rule of reservation will become right to equality and take us back to Champakam Dorarajam since equality was to be a temporary aspect..Justice Bhat: Idea of fraternity is to awaken the consciousness of each member of society and such progress cannot be achieved by separation but by unification. I seek to quote Swami Vivekananda's message delivered in Chicago..Justice Bhat: For question 1, State can introduce reservation for the economically backward and those who suffer from ill effects of poverty and thus reservation based on economic criteria is not invalid. But for question 2, for excluding SC-ST OBC, It is unconstitutional..Justice Bhat: EWS amendment's exclusionary mechanism operates against social disadvantaged class and it denies mobility from the reserved quota to a reservation quota based on economic criteria..Justice Bhat: The exclusion is based on deprivation but is discriminatory and thus the amendment is nothing but discrimination and thus, destroys the equality code and thus the EWS amendment is arbitrary and creates hostility for the socially disadvantaged..Justice Bhat: Thus, I strike down the EWS amendment. Though economic criteria for accessing public goods is permissible, but for discrimination it is struck down as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it is violative of the basic structure of the constitution..CJI UU Lalit: I have concurred with the view taken by Justice Bhat. The decision stands at 3:2..CJI UU Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat strike down EWS amendment.Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala uphold the EWS amendment. Majority bench upholds the 103rd Constitutional amendment..CJI UU Lalit: Thus, as consequence the challenge to EWS amendment fails. Thank you..The five judges sign the judgment.Judgment dictation ends.