The Supreme Court will continue hearing the case relating to admissions to National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) postgraduate (PG) courses [Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India].A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna will hear the case.The case was listed for urgent hearing yesterday after the Central government highlighted the protests by doctors in the national capital seeking expeditious decision in the matter since their admissions have been stalled due to the case.The case relates to petitions challenging the 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and 10 per cent reservation for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) introduced by the Central government in the All-India Quota (AIQ) seats in State government medical institutions.One of the aspects the Court is specifically examining is the feasibility of having ₹8 lakh as a cap to avail the EWS quota for PG medical admissions.NEET counselling is usually held in March every year, but was delayed in 2021 due to COVID-19. The NEET-PG entrance examination itself was held only in September 2021, and the counselling has not started yet. The admission of around 50,000 resident doctors are, therefore, on hold.The doctors have thus taken to the streets, demanding that the counselling be conducted expeditiously.During yesterday's hearing the Central government told the top court that the counselling and admission process for the courses was stuck due to the case before the Supreme Court.Read Central Government's affidavit filed on January 1.Read more from yesterday's hearing here.Read live updates from the hearing today below..Senior Advocate Arvind Datar: Since time is short, should I just give bullet points? Supreme Court: Yes. Sr. Adv. Datar: They formed a committee in 2006 that gave a report in 2010. I'll call it the Pandey report as Ajay Bhushan Pandey led it. The Sino committee came to the conclusion after extensive study...Sr. Adv. Datar: The commission consulted state govt and UTs, NGOs and social leaders. It contains exhaustive discussion of each and every party. For example, Tamil Nadu said we have 69% reservation we don't need economic one at all. It's very detailed, they've gone state wise..Sr. Adv. Datar: No reference to agriculture land etc. have been made by the committee. BPL population in General category was higher in some states than others. BPL is an expenditure based statistics. The committee goes into determination of poverty. BPL can be a factor..Sr. Adv. Datar: It can be nutritional value but final they settled at income. Emphasis was put on caste based survey to understand the distribution. They say there must be a bottom up approach.Our submission is 8 lakh is a top down approach and not a bottom up approach..Sr. Adv. Datar: Family should be taken as unit. Don't adopt creamy layer criteria. Income limit of husband and wife, excluding that of older people and children to be taken. Though GC is a class of unreserved category more of less equal, their economic conditions are not equal.Sr. Adv. Datar: From such resources the commission came to the understanding that economically backward classes will come from unreserved categories. They reiterate don't adopt creamy layer. The commission also felt the criteria should be simple for EBCs- non tax paying families and.Sr. Adv. Datar: BPL could be one. Everyone with BPL is automatically EBC and everyone below the taxing limit should be taken as EBC..Supreme Court: Mr. Datar, you'll wrap up by 12? Sr. Adv. Datar: Yes. Others are waiting. Sino Commission's one recommendation is go by the income. Supreme Court: All BPL families+ all families whose income is below taxable limit which was 1.60l in 2010. But Sino did say extending criteria for creamy layer..Supreme Court: For this determination. We got your point that paraphrasing of Sino in counter is wrong. Sr. Adv. Datar: My also point is they have gone into even vaccination status of people, it is such a detailed report. There must be compelling reasons to dismiss Simo commission and go to creamy...Sr. Adv. Datar: Layer. Neither the Pandey committee not the counter has given even one sentence as to what is the reason for rejection of Sino Commission. After spending so much time, money, effort and consulting so many people, you say I'm just going to adopt creamy layer. .Sr. Adv. Datar: If at all you want to adopt economic criteria, here is a detailed report. Income limit- how did they come to 8 lakhs? They say creamy layer was 6 L in 2016. Consumer point index 1.46- 6x 1.36 is 8 Lakhs. That's all..Sr. Adv. Datar: In Pandey committee report, there is no reason for agriculture land. They themselves say asset class is flawed. 1st point is not ignoring Sino Commission. 2nd is no study. 3rd is power under 15(6) and 16(6), both centre and state can form commissions to find economically backward..Sr. Adv. Datar: Class. Kerala has taken up its own exercise and limited it to 4L. Supreme Court: We are referring to all India quota here. Determine EWS in this should be given to every state? This is all India. Sr. Adv. Datar: The government can argue how all India quota will apply to central institutes..Sr. Adv. Datar: Income disparity- please go to my charts. The Pandey committee says they don't have reliable data which is not correct. There was a parliamentary question if there is huge difference in per capita income. The answer was it ranges from around 14k to 4L..Supreme Court: What is your submission? Sr. Adv. Datar: In a vast country like India, where it ranges from 40k to 4L- 8Lakh is an arbitrary number. I'm going with Mr Shyam Diwan- we should not change the rules of the game. Other submission I'm making is I was startled to see GC varies vastly..Sr. Adv. Datar: It is best to have a fixed flat income that is clear indicative. I'll come to asset category and wind up. Income criteria of 8L is arbitrary, assets criteria is even worse. 5 acres of agricultural land- keeping national limit of 5 acre is completely wrong..Sr. Adv. Datar: Impossible to have 5 acre due to population density. There is no answer on what basis is this arrived at. Residential flat in Bombay, Chennai is so different. Residential plot nothing. My submission is if you use income plus asset, income is over inclusive and it's a top.Sr. Adv. Datar: down approach and leaves out deserving candidates. Supreme Court: Pandey com says Type 1 error- undeserving getting advantage and type 2 deserving not getting. So this is type 2 error. Sr. Adv. Datar: The difficulty is if the reserved category candidate makes it to the score for open category..Sr. Adv. Datar: They are counted in open category. On top of it if you don't calculate EBS properly then GC are not getting any reservation anywhere.In Indra Swahney, they said it's about a proper and appropriate identification of a backward class with distinguishing traits from others.Sr. Adv. Datar: Replace backward to economically backward. In the 7th pay commission, the salary of class 4 employee is 18k to 30k. If you take this, none of these children will be able to claim benefit is there is 8L limit. People must have common traits in the class..Sr. Adv. Datar: Supreme Court had issued a means test against Maharashtra's scheme for housing for poor. As a working guideline, we direct that a means test will be adopted and income for applicant shouldn't exceed 18k. The Supreme Court directed minimum income tax limit to be the limit..Sr. Adv. Datar: Please come to creamy layer. They themselves say there'll be a huge compliance burden if you ask people to... The reason to discontinue it next year is where are candidates going to get all these certificates? Let us stick to the criteria on the prospectus..Sr. Adv. Datar: Arbitrary. Now, we're talking about PG, it will be applicable to all India. Lordships may direct 2.5 L should be limit for this year for today's counselling. Rest we can see later. Let us at least preserve integrity of Sino Commission..Supreme Court: Who is appearing for petitioners? Yes, Mr Choudhary? Advocate Shrirang Choudhary: Unless the constitutional mandate is complied with, no additions can be made. After the 102nd amendment, OBC list has to be notified by the President as per newly inserted Article 342A. .Adv Choudhary: This revision of SC/BC was last done in 2016. Thereafter by this particular insertion, it is mandatory.Supreme Court: We got the point. What's the next point? Adv Choudhary: In 2017, Justice Rohini commission was set up to examine sub categorisation to ensure benefits being given to..Adv Choudhary: All classes. 2300 castes are to be divided into 4 groups. 2%, 6%, 9% and 10% to be divided amongst them to make up 27%. Just 10 caste groups take up 25% of the benefits. NCBC was set up as per Indra Swahney. The NCBC Act was brought in in 1993..Supreme Court: Revision in 10 years, what is the point? Adv Choudhary: No revision has happened since 1993. Supreme Court: Thank you, Mr Choudhary. .Sr. Adv. Anand Grover: For the purposes of A15, 16 backward classes shall be indicated by family income and other factors. The report that has been submitted, EWS should be perceived art prevailing level of poverty rather than creamy layer. 8L limit allows the creamy layer to come in..Sr. Adv. Grover: The economically weaker section criteria of nutrition, landlessness, employment etc is completely ignored. The figure of 8L is arbitrary. In their own report, the affidavit says they are accepting the report prospectively. Not clear what they mean. .Sr. Adv. Grover: What I understand is that it will be enforced after it comes out and government accepts it. It is not very clear. I support Mr. Datar's arguments about 8L criteria. Even with this criteria, if the income tax criteria is adopted of 5L, vast majority falls in it. Upto 5L is a huge figure..Sr. Adv. Grover: There is no reason why they have made it to 8L. Supreme Court: What you are saying is use your 142 power and limit it to 5L? Sr. Adv. Grover: I'm saying use the income tax cut off figure. With inflation it varies from 2.5L..Sr. Adv. Grover: I'm supplementing Mr. Datar's submission. Given that there is no evidence of bunch EWS in higher income bracket, despite the fact the bulk of candidates is under 5L, higher criterion is required. Except for this sentence, there is no reason why it should be 8 and not 5L..Sr. Adv. Grover: 8L is arbitrary. Supreme Court: Thank you, Mr Grover..Supreme Court: We are concluding with the petitioners, so one side is over.Advocate Dave: I'm representing resident doctors who had gone on strike. 45000 doctors are inducted as PG doctor's every year in medical workforce. This year because of the pandemic exam happened late, only 2nd and 3rd year residents are there because 1st years have not joined..Supreme Court: What is your submission? Adv. Dave: The counselling had to start immediately because 3rd year residents are about to pass out in 4 months. We'll be left with 33% of workforce..Adv Dave: With 3rd wave coming we need doctors. The 8L or 5L limit can be looked at later. Supreme Court: That's a valid point you're making, not only for the doctors but also the citizens. Thank you. .Advocate Subodh Patil: Reservations are not required in PG courses. That is my limited submission where OBCs are concerned. I'm not challenging EWS. The scheme is not benefiting those intended. Supreme Court: Thank you..Supreme Court: We are now listening to people opposing OBC reservation. Advocate Varun Thakur: I'm opposing EWS. Supreme Court: Do just then. Adv Thakur: Constitutional validity is still sub judice. There is no settled position. Supreme Court: We got your point, thank you..Supreme Court: Now, we'll turn to Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta.Adv Ratnoo: I've done extensive research for OBC, if court could give me some time. Supreme Court: We listened to petitioners, now respondents. We are following a pattern..Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta: I would dispel the rumour that there is any change of rules midway. The regime which is subject matter of this challenge is already implemented since 2019 except in all India quota of UG and PG..SG: The submission of the petitioner that OBC reservation is per se unconstitutional as canvassed by Mr. Diwan is not legally sustainable submission and the judgment he relied on does not state this. The Pandey committee report- eventually the submission would be unless it is grossly unfair and no man with common sense would reach this conclusion..SG: There is no change in the rules of the game as Mr. Diwan is saying. Release of information brochure: 21/2/21. Rules of game starts from this date..SG: Exam date: 18 March, new date 13 July 21. Date for counselling is released is 29 July 21. Now please see, so far as the first date is concerned, information bulletin was issued only for NEET examination. Reservation will be as per norms of GOI and state government as applicable..SG: My performance in exam doesn't depend on the reservation. I have to perform my best. Can't say there's more reservation so I can perform less. When the counselling starts, you'll be informed what's the position of reservation. 29 July 21 brochure was given..SG: What was the position when these 29 July notification was issued? It was not for the first time central government introduced such reservations (OBC, EWS). There is an act called Central Educational Institutes (Reservation in admissions) Act 2006. This concerns OBC reservation..SG: Reservations can be made to uplift weaker sections of the society in institutions run or aided by central government. Right from 2006, the CEI had 27% reservation. In all India quota, the 29 July notification, it is not happening for the first time..SG: 27% OBC and 10% EWS because that is the decision taken in January 2019 which is mentioned in the committee report. 31 Jan 2019, they've already implemented. For UPSC examination they already have these reservations. These are all on record by way of an affidavit..SG: NDS counselling happened with the same 27% OBC and 10% EWS. Everywhere it is implemented. It would be discrimination if it is not implemented in NEET UG and PG All India Quota..Supreme Court: Mr. Solicitor, would it be sufficient if we give you half an hour for lunch? SG: Yes yes. Supreme Court: We'll return at 1:30. Sr. Adv. Rohatgi: Can I have a moment's indulgence? Item 32 the bail matter is in February. I heard you saying it's not up. Supreme Court: Not your matter, that was something else..SG: There are two submissions with respect to rules of the game. The game started with effect from Feb 2021 when the notification issued said reservation will be announced later. The exam is related to counselling not reservation..SG: The candidates who had registered for counselling have already got their certificates with respect to EWS and have filed it with counselling centre as per previous regime. There will not be any hardship to anyone. Supreme Court: When did they have to file the certificates? SG: 29 July, when the counselling booklet was published. Not at the time of Feb 21..SG: Nobody needs to file anything. They are only waiting for counselling as per pre Pandey committee report. When 103rd amendment came- EWS class was added, the government took a decision that in all medical colleges, let us increase the seats by 25%..SG: Wherever EWS students will be accommodated would not harm the other candidates as the 25% increase was made for them. Mr. Datar said it's unconstitutional. Art 15(5) itself provides for it. Supreme Court: Which is the submission you're bringing out? SG: Para 16, Pg 7..SG: There cannot be any reservation in super speciality. We are concerned with counselling in NEET. NEET has nothing to do with super speciality. Article 15(5) has not distinguished between UG and PG when it says state can have reservations for socially and educationally backward class..SG: It does not demarcate UG or PG level. Therefore OBC reservation is constitutionally permitted in both UG and PG. Mr. Datar relied on Pradeep Jain judgement that reservation can't happen in PG. My substance is this none of the judgements of Your Lordships even remotely suggest that there cannot be reservation in PG..SG: Pradeep Jain dealt with reservation with respect to residential requirements or institutional preference. SC: I think it's in Mr. Diwan's petition. Sr. Adv. Diwan: Yes, My Lord. SG: There was a domicile question there..SG: This judgement says that other reservations can be made validly. So far as residential or institutional preference is concerned, My Lords have been clear that there'll be no reservation in PG..Supreme Court: Only in the case of super speciality there'll be no reservation at all even on the basis of residence and institutional preference. SG: That is the correct reading. Supreme Court: After the PG level, you can have it on other criteria..SG: It is permissible to have reservation in PG, Your Lordships said in the case of Haryana, but you said that there will be no mandamus. Supreme Court: What is the next judgement? SG: It's a constitutional bench judgement. Pradeep Jain has been understood even by the constitutional bench..SG: As relating to residence and institutional preference. They said they find no reason to depart from Pradeep Jain ratio. It has nothing to do with PG reservation. Next judgement- 2020 13 SCC 675- only ratio is this, it's got nothing to do with permissibility of PG reservation..SG: As far as OBC reservation in Central Educational Institutes is concerned, the Act of 2006 and Article 15 covers it. Article 15 doesn't demarcate UG and PG. There was a study, there was application of mind. It was not an unstudied position taken..SG: Exercise undertaken by union government- just to say that let us continue existing system this year- Supreme Court: Now it's about EWS? SG: Yes. It is submitted the criteria for determination of EWS category was arrived at after due deliberation by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment..Supreme Court: Before the 103 amendment there was no consultation to MoSJE to consider medical colleges. SG: Mr. Natraj will take it in the end. The determination of EWS doesn't suffer from over inclusiveness. Now come to Pandey committee report. They also come to the same conclusion..SG: Ultimately we may go into all kinds of statistics but ultimately what convinces the court is the common sense argument. Whether 8L from common sense point of view be correct- 8L means 7000 a month. We are not finding out who is poor. The word used is economically weaker..SG: It doesn't need to be BPL, it can be slightly above poverty line. .SG: This Scottish poet Andrew Lang says that some people use statistics like a drunken man uses a lamp post- for support and not illumination..SG: First paperless census happened with all these details. Automatically included households without shelters, of manual scavengers etc. What was the outcome? The outcome reveals that 73% of households belong to rural areas. 39% of them are excluded from the beneficiary pool..SG: 0.9% are automatically included. Why I'm showing this? Whenever we undertake such a exercise it will be possible for an intelligent mind to figure out another way of doing things. It is whether relevant was considered? Whether irrelevant material went into consideration?.SGI: Whether there was application of mind? And finally, if it is so absurd that a person with common sense would not think it. The National multidimensional poverty index developed by NITI Ayog is also one tool. Your lordship will not take a different view till you find this view absurd..SG: No single indicator can capture poverty. Any straitjacket rule is never useful..SG: Now difference between creamy layer and EWS. EWS is much tighter for people like shopkeepers etc. People can have one good harvest and move out of EWS. We have to cap it somewhere. In the creamy layer, the total income from salaries and agricultural land shall not be counted...Supreme Court: When you first came to Court you proceeded on the basis that 8L is creamy layer criteria. In the Pandey report, it is said that Sinho said the criteria for creamy layer in OBC can be the upper limit for EBC..Supreme Court: Sinho Commission said we could have placed it on OBC creamy layer criteria. But they said no. OBC is backwardness of caste, this is economically backward, so income is taken. First the affidavit you filed you said creamy layer..Supreme Court: While revisiting, you said Pandey committee says EWS is much stricter as it's last year's income which can be very volatile. Today's income tax exemption limit is 2.5L. Upto 5L you get a rebate. Effectively there's no tax. SG: I'd like to preface an argument that we're not looking at poor but EWS. even while framing...SG: The income tax limit, the government tends to be inclusive and even includes those who they deem to have savings..Supreme Court: The 5-8L, is this something the court should defer? As in should we say it's not arbitrary view. The reason I'm putting this to you. Advocate Ratnoo: I want to clarify something. Supreme Court: The Solicitor General is arguing. SG: They have taken various routes to decide what destination we should reach..SGI: They are not stuck on 8L. The committee is of the view that EWS should be wrt Income Tax and agricultural income. If three people are earning 3L per year, their income will be 9L and won't be eligible for EWS. This would be worse with 5L. We don't want over or under inclusion..Supreme Court: The Pandey Committee has accepted the retaining of 5 acres of agricultural land. The rest like measurement of residential land and all they say is very burdensome. If it is burdensome, why are you removing it next year and not this year? SG: The 5L income is family income..SG: Why they're saying have from next year- apart from wealth tax, they've also said 500 sq ft flat in Bombay, Chennai or small village will be different. If we were now to change the rules of the game and ask them to get new certificates..Supreme Court: You don't need new certificates..Supreme Court: You'll have to give them fresh time to apply if you do it this year. SG: I can say I did have flat and didn't meet the criteria. Supreme Court: We understand why next year. How much time should we give you? We'd like to wind up today..SG: We are considering family as a unit and not individual. Individual might have a 5L limit, but not family..SG: In a case like this, you can consider it prospectively. If my learned colleague Mr. Natraj wants to add. ASG KM Nataraj: I will not repeat anything. Dr Dinesh Kumar v Motilal Nehru Medical College- all India reservation could be provided..ASG: When PG courses were discussed, a certain percentage maybe reserved for institutional preference. The government was obliged to holding all India examination and it was observed. Government submitted a scheme as to how reservation should be provided. It won't be right for us to limit the reservation that states can make to...ASG: 50% in MBBS, BDS and PG courses. In Budhi Prakash Sharma, there was some ambiguity so in 2007 clarification was sought. 50% to be filled by all India examination includes reservation. Reservation is provided by the court, the extent has to be decided by it and not government..ASG: Consistent view of the court is Article 15(4) is an enabling provision. Preferential treatment can be given validly when socially backward classes need it. It does not make reservation mandatory. Reservation for SC/ST/backward communities is allowed, but there can't be mandamus..Supreme Court: Mr. Nataraj, we saw this judgement already. Now what else? ASG: the SG said Article 15(5) says educational institutions includes OG Supreme Court: Yes, he's made that argument. Thank you. Sr. Adv. P. Wilson: The court hasn't dealt with communal reservation. What is merit? The court has said mark is not merit in Pradeep Jain..Sr. Adv. Wilson (for OBC): Merit cannot be seek in view of marks alone but human values necessary for the medical profession. Supreme Court: In my judgement in Pavitra also I've dealt with it with respect to efficiency. Sr. Adv. Wilson: Those who are unequal cannot be treated equally in law..Sr. Adv. Wilson: We must proceed on the basis, as far as admission to MBBS is concerned, resident requirement can be added as a condition. Para 22 they'll say 50% for the institutional. For others, Dinesh Kumar and ors, they have held they're not going into the question of reservation..Sr. Adv. Wilson: These may give rise to question of social policy that the Court will have to deal with at some time. In Rakjeshvaran, they asked for reservation, the court said that court cannot give a direction to give reservation..Sr. Adv. Wilson: The core question is about constitutional validity of reservation based on domicile or institutional preference. Abhaynath case is the first case dealing with grant of reservation when govt wanted to give it. Court permitted to include the reservation to SC/ST students..Sr. Adv. Wilson: In my written submission, this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner. For a CEI, reservation has been implemented right from 2008. You can't say the centre can give reservation and stop state from doing the same. Madras High Court held when CEI is granting reservation, there is no impediment in state giving that reservation..Sr. Adv. Wilson: The reservation of seats in medical colleges for respective categories shall be as per prevailing laws in the state and UTs. This is for the UG courses. For PG courses, the reservation of seats in medical colleges will be according to prevailing laws in the states and UTs..Supreme Court: Therefore, the Mad High Court said.. Sr. Adv. Wilson: Please see page 135. Madras High Court said if you want to give reservation, constitute a committee and give from next academic year..Sr. Adv. Wilson: Saloni Kumari came to the court to ask for 27% reservation. The court said go to Madras High Court. Liberty was given by this court. High Court deferred the case, then this court gave an instruction to the HC to hear the case..Sr. Adv. Wilson: This 8L OBC criteria. By not stretch of imagination this can be compared to EWS. They are comparing unequals with equals. That cannot be done. Supreme Court: Are you opposing the EWS reservation? Sr. Adv. Wilson: No. In the original affidavit they said creamy layer has 8L limit but there is a history there..Supreme Court: You're saying ipso facto the two cannot be 8L on the same criteria. SG: Mr. Wilson, you're arguing something that's a good supposition in law, but not argued here. Adv Ratnoo: I've been waiting patiently My Lords as an intervener I won't take more than 5 mins..Supreme Court: Your time hasn't come yet. Mr. Wilson, on EWS you don't want to specifically add something? Supreme Court: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Sr. Adv. Mariarputham: I'm appearing for Tamil Nadu. Supreme Court: Yes? Sr. Adv. Mariarputham: The SG mentioned 2016 Act. What I want to submit is that 2016 act + 15(4) including 27% reservation in favour of OBCs. In PG courses, reservation can be given..Sr. Adv. Mariarputham: 1994 4 SCC 401, reservation in PG medical Courses rejected all challenges to reservation for SC, ST and OBC. Pradeep Jain is only dealing with regional reservation. Clear distinction made between PG and super speciality. No reservation in super speciality..Sr. Adv. Mariarputham: From 2008, central government has been providing reservation to OBCs in CEI on central seats. In Saloni Devi this was challenged to take all seats as a pool and not discriminate between state and centre..Sr. Adv. Mariarputham: Entirety of All India seats is considered as one entity as it stands corrected. Advocate Biju: Will hearing continue tomorrow? Supreme Court: We are wrapping up today, if you want to say anything. Adv Biju: There are two judgements saying that if there are two views in an amendment, the Court should be extremely careful in taking one view..Adv Biju: My Lords may note of that. Everybody were attacking against EWS, I will submit that what was constituent assembly debate in interpreting EWS. I'm pained by this point formed with respect to OBCs and EWS..Supreme Court: When you formulate points you don't have to get pained. Just give us a note, we get your point. Adv Biju: I'll give 25 judgements. I'm EWS in the court Supreme Court: You want to argue the whole day tomorrow, we'll delay the order. Adv Biju: No, no. I'll give a note..Adv Ratnoo: In OBC salary and agricultural income is not counted, in EWS everything is counted. Rohini commission has got extension, they'll come out with report on 32/1/22. There is no bar for PG reservation. Supreme Court: Thank you..Justice DY Chandrachud: Everyone is equal in the court. Don't say I'm EWS in the court. We have been hearing this for two days, we must start counselling in national interest. .Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan: My submission is with these dates available to the court and that the impugned notification. We are not dealing with a handful of seats we are dealing with 2500 seats. As far as NEET MDS is concerned there is no problem. It's 33.4 on the list..Sr. Adv. Divan: The court is saying look 50% all India quota keep it in general category. I have appeared for my PG exam today, and I believe my rights are being violated and putting me at a tremendous disadvantage..Sr. Adv. Divan: When they issued the public notice also, their understanding was very different. Their understanding also was this was a Court created 50% quota. Can you have an executive decision turn it? I want to spend a minute on Madras High Court order. Yes, we are aware of Justice Nageshwar Rao judgement..Divan: It must stand on the basis of whether it is constitutionally firm. It was not about individual students. We're here before the court who have been very patiently hearing this. May we submit the note by tomorrow morning? Supreme Court: Thank you, yes..Sr. Adv. Datar: The Lordship has to keep in mind that seats are going to EWS which is not a defined category. It can have huge effect of PG candidates' life. The 8L and all is without any kind of data whatsoever. After deliberation Sinho Committee said 2.5L and gave a formula, nobody questioned it..Sr. Adv. Datar: Sinho Commission has gone to depth, let's not question it. Let's keep it at 2.5L because after that you become and Income Tax assesse. That's all..SG: My distinction is it is for family, not individual. Sr. Adv. Datar: Very difficult for them to get asset certificate. it will delay counselling. Supreme Court: Mr. Mehta said they've already submitted. Sr. Adv. Datar: I don't know then..Sr. Adv. Datar: I have challenged the validity in my own petition, that will be heard by larger bench. Your Lordships will limit to EWS. It can't be 8L forever. If I'm aggrieved I'll challenge it. Supreme Court: Thank you, Mr. Datar.