[Day 2 EWS Quota Hearing] If economic condition is recognised basis for classification, is 10% EWS quota not permissible: Supreme Court

On the second day of hearing the petitions challenging constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment granting 10% reservation to Economically Weaker Section of the society, the Supreme Court questioned if the EWS quota would pass the test of constitutionality "if economic basis is a recognised basis for classification." [Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India].A five- judge constitution bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala is hearing the batch of petitions challenging the 10% EWS quota. .Former Advocate General of Karnataka and Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar submitted that the grounds of prohibition in discrimination was caste, creed, sex, and religion, not economic weakness. "Where is the mention of economic depravity? It is not a ground of discrimination. It cannot be permitted that you put economic criteria in 15(1) and then introduce a bridge by way of Article 15(6)," argued Kumar. .Justice Bhat, however, questioned the reasoning behind the same saying, "The economic basis is a recognised basis for classification. It's non-enumeration under Articles 15 and 16 will perhaps mean it is permissible"To this, Kumar replied, "what is permissible is already written." "Can poor man be given cabinet berth or seat in Rajya Sabha? This is a misplaced provision. this is not a remedy. A tuberculosis patient cannot be taken to the maternity ward. if someone is poor you give them money, help them in fees and hostels. Equality code allowed economic factors to be taken into note. Give them free hostel, free boarding and lodging.. but why give them quota instead of those who have always been denied jobs or place in an institution historically," Kumar elaborated..Senior Advocate Kumar also underlined that the right to be considered for a state-aided institution is a fundamental right and that right which was available to the open category for 50 percent has now been shrunk due to the 103rd amendment. "103rd amendment is an affront on the constitution. All rights taken away in case of this 10 percent. even in respect of one post I could not have been denied. This 10 percent quota condemns me to a caste to which I was born because I am not allowed. I did not apply for a job or university seat under the quota," he submitted. .Senior Advocate P Wilson, also appearing for the petitioners, argued that reservation purely on economic consideration is violation of the basic structure of the constitution. "It destroys the identity of the constitution and the parliament has travelled in a forbidden area by invoking Article 368 by brute majority and trampled the rights," Wilson submitted. ."I don't want to quote Ekalavya and Mahabharata to show presence of caste. President of India was turned away from a temple and even a first lady was not allowed in the temple. So this is still going on. Reservation is only to remedy the historical injustice. The structural barriers have to be seen, they were kept away from mainstream for generations after generations," Wilson submitted. .Wilson also argued that reservation is not a poverty alleviation program, and that EWS quota was essentially for those who needed monetary support and not for the ones who have suffered historical injustice. .Read about the hearing on Day 1 here..[Read our live coverage of the hearing below]