"EWS Quota is reservation for forward class, backdoor attempt to destroy reservation:" Dr. G Mohan Gopal to Supreme Court [Day 1]

The 103rd Constitutional amendment providing 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) is a deceitful and backdoor attempt to destroy the concept of reservation by granting reservation to forward classes, legal academic Dr. G Mohan Gopal told the Supreme Court on Tuesday [Janhit Abhiyan v 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 on Tuesday began hearing pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 10% quota for the economically weaker sections (EWS)..The bench is primarily hearing arguments on three questions:Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria?;Whether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided institutions?; andWhether the 103rd Constitution Amendment can be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution in excluding the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation?.Beginning the arguments against the amendment, Dr. Gopal argued that the ground level reality of the EWS quota was as if the forward classes were eligible for reservation. "This amendment is a deceitful and a backdoor attempt to destroy the concept of reservation by granting this to the forward class. People are getting confused as people are saying it is for economically weaker section but I am getting rejected. This plan has been implemented with such alacrity and this reservation has penetrated panchayats and it is being implemented as forward class reservation. The ground level reality is that this amendment is dividing the country on caste lines. it may not seem as it is in this hallowed chambers but this is the reality," he said. .He also submitted that the 103rd amendment was an "attack on the constitutional vision of social justice" as it neutralizes the "basic agenda of Supreme Court to treat unequals as equals" and that the amendment "is nothing but an assault on the Constitution and it is similar to stabbing the Constitution at its heart.""Economic weakness results from social and educational backwardness. It is in our interest that all section have a voice in corridors of power. EWS reservation is focussed on individuals. But Article 2 of the Constitution focuses on inter group equality. Now I am moving to the violation of basic structure doctrine. This amendment nullifies the basic structure doctrines' core.. inter group equality," Dr. Gopal explained..One of the primary contentions raised by Dr. Gopal was that EWS reservation is intended to benefit forward classes.He also questioned the ₹8 lakh annual income limit which determines whether a person falls within EWS category.A global research report states that 96% of the Indian population earn less than ₹25,000."We need to yield to this 96%. If we eat up the reservation for backward classes then the entire platform for equality gets disturbed. If this amendment is upheld then it will be a fraud on the vision of Dr BR Ambedkar," argued Dr Gopal.He also submitted that this amendment leads to a moral hazard of poor financial decision making and rewards such behavior because the criteria for the EWS quota is income..He, therefore, contended that the amendment should be struck down since there was no need of an oligarchy to rule the country, much less a forward class oligarchy."We do not want an oligarchy to rule the country. Not a forward class oligarchy or backward class oligarchy as when such thing happens policies are all formed favouring the same. We want representation. Even backward segments in Brahmins have given reservations," .He also argued that claims of the government that the 103rd amendment implements the objective of Article 46 was a "blatant lie" ."The article says scheduled caste and scheduled tribes be protected.. but they are very much excluded.".Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora for the petitioners also submitted that the criteria for EWS cut off was a nebulous one and that "economic disadvantage is neither entrenched nor enduring" but is "temporary and it's based on individual disadvantaged which can be remedied with money.""This morning I get an admission into an institute under EWS category. By afternoon my father gets a job which is much more than 8 lakhs and even then I am EWS. This shows how nebulous the criteria is. This excludes majority of population. To pretend that EWS and backward class both need reservation is not proper," Arora elaborated..Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, also for the petitioners argued that the point is not only that a backward person cannot take part in EWS quota but if the backward class person comes under the EWS criteria, then also they cannot take part.""This is what arbitrary in 103rd amendment," Parikh summed up. .[Read our live coverage of the hearing below]