Today’s Legal Updates

Monday, 7th November 2022

Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Part – Vl THE STATES

CHAPTER- III  THE STATE LEGISLATURE

General

Article – 172 Duration of State Legislatures.

  1. Every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for [five years] from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of [five years] shall operate as a dissolution of the Assembly:
    Provided that the said period may, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, be extended by Parliament by law for a period not exceeding one year at a time and not extending in any case beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate.
  2. The Legislative Council of a State shall not be subject to dissolution, but as nearly as possible one-third of the members thereof shall retire as soon as may be on the expiration of every second year in accordance with the provisions made in that behalf by Parliament by law.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Monday a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment which grants 10 percent reservation to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) among the forward castes.  (Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India and ors)
    • The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala.
    • Justice Maheshwari held :-
      • 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.
      • It is a means of inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged. Reservation on economic basis does not violate basic structure of the Constitution.
      • EWS reservation does not violate the equality code or violate essential feature of constitution and breach of 50 percent does not violate basic structure as the ceiling limit is here only for 16(4) and (5).
    • Justice Bela M Trivedi held :-
      • The amendment as a separate class is a reasonable classification. Legislature understands the needs of people and it is aware of the economic exclusion of people from reservation.
      • 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 in his judgment upholding EWS :-
      • 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 todays time. Reservation should not continue for indefinite time so that it becomes a vested interest.
    • Justice Ravindra Bhat in his dissenting judgment held :-
      • This Court has held that 16(1) and (4) are facets of same equality principle. This amendment bestowing double benefits is incorrect. This exclusion violates non discriminatory and no exclusionary facet of the equality code.
      • 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.
      • The Sinho commission was setup to determine economic backwardness and it is based on census of 2001. It says 38% of total SC population and 48% of total ST population was below poverty line. Bulk of economically deprived are these sections.
      • Permitting breach of 50 percent 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.
    • CJI UU Lalit concurred with Justice Bhat’s opinon.
    • Attorney General for India KK Venugopal had :-
      • 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?
      • Whether 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?
  2. On Monday the Kerala High Court ruled that Bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled on account of violation of bail conditions, without issuing notice and giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. (Muhammed Yasin v The Station House Officer & Anr.)
    • Justice Kauser Edappagath held that orders When the cancellation of bail is sought either on the ground of post conduct of the accused like violation of the conditions of the bail or on the ground of the occurrence of supervening circumstances, the court must issue notice to the accused to explain why the bail granted to him should not be cancelled. He should also be given a fair opportunity of hearing. The order cancelling the bail unilaterally without hearing the accused cannot withstand (sic) legally.
    • the Court observed that the bail once granted cannot be canceled in a mechanical manner without considering the post-bail conduct of the accused and whether any supervening circumstances have been rendered.
    • the order stated, It is the fundamental principle of natural justice that before any action is taken against an affected party, a notice must be given to him in order to present the cause against the proposed action.This cardinal rule of justice administration is espoused in the Latin maxim Audi alteram partem. It embodies the concept that no person should be condemned unheard. No decision should be taken by the court without hearing both sides.
  3. On Monday the Gujarat High Court took suo motu cognisance of the Morbi Bridge collapse of October 30, 2022.
    • The 141-year-old suspension bridge over the Machchuu river in Morbi, Gujarat had collapsed on October 30 causing the death of around 135 persons.
    • Mr Advocate General, it was disheartening. More than 100 persons have died an untimely death. So we have taken a suo motu cognizance of it. We want to know what steps have you (state) taken so far.
  4. On Monday the Supreme Court upheld an order of the Allahabad High Court disqualifying Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Abdullah Azam Khan owing to a discrepancy in his date of birth provided in official records.  (Abdullah Azam Khan vs Nawab Kazim Ali Khan)
    • the majority opinion by Justice Rastogi states, Merely because the same [school records] has been later on cancelled by the appellant, it may not lose its evidentiary value.
    • Justice Nagarathna in her concurring judgment notes, the stand taken by the successful candidate that all documents pertaining to the Birth Certificate dated 28.06.2012 issued by the office of Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur, were burnt due to a short circuit on 08.05.2015 would suggest that the said birth certificate, wherein the date of birth of the successful candidate was recorded as 01.01.1993 came to be destroyed and later cancelled were under suspicious circumstances.
    • The top court, It is also trite law that when both the parties have adduced evidence and that too is in reference to a common question and particularly for determination of age, which is the subject matter of dispute and when both the parties have adduced evidence, the question of onus of proof becomes academic.
  5. On Monday the Supreme Court ruled that the public interest litigation petition filed against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren before the Jharkhand High Court alleging money laundering and irregularities in granting mining leases, is not maintainable.  (State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma)
    • The Jharkhand High Court had earlier this year directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into the concerned allegations after a bench led by the Chief Justice of the High Court relied on a sealed cover report from the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
    • The High Court had initially rejected the State’s objection to acceptance of the sealed cover report. The Chief Justice-led Bench had directed the State to produce details of the 16 FIRs relating to an alleged MGNREGA scam, and took note of the fact that a Mining Secretary was arrested and suspended in connection with the matters.
    • Pertinently, the Court had deprecated the use of the PIL route to initiate an Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe when there was no predicate offence registered.
  6. Former Tatva Legal lawyer and advocate practicing before the Karnataka High Court, Vivek Siddalingaiah has been called to the Bar of England & Wales as a member of The Hon’ble Society of Lincoln’s Inn, London.
    • I really wanted to qualify as a Barrister since 2010 when I was a lawyer in India, but for personal reasons I couldn’t. Finally in 2019 I felt it was the right time. Unfortunately, because of COVID-19, there were a lot of cancellations and postponements of examinations.
    • However, based on my 8 years of experience back then and my LL.M., I was asked to sit for only for the Bar Transfer Test. I was exempted from the regular, traditional Bar Course. In the Bar Transfer Test, I was asked to only give 4 Procedural and Advocacy papers namely civil litigation, criminal litigation, advocacy and professional ethics.
    • One of my close friends is a Qualified Barrister in Pakistan helped me go about the entire process. There are very few people in India who have actually cleared this exam because the Bar Transfer Test is only for people with minimum post-qualification experience.
    • Vivek said, I’m proud to say that this is the largest Inn in the UK which has over 21 thousand members throughout the world and there are less than 100 members from India and I’m one of them.
    • My plan ahead is definitely to move back to India and shift my practice from Bangalore to the Supreme Court. In the long run, I want to serve the Indian Judiciary.
    • As advice to young lawyers and law students, Siddalingaiah said, Explore different options. There are a lot of varied options available. Qualifying as a Barrister is a very serious, competitive and pretty expensive process. So, one needs to consider their financial position, experience and also the determination. In the UK, especially, very few get to qualify as Barristers and less than 500 get placed in chambers every year. That’s how competitive it is.
    • The first thing I’d definitely advise is patience. I wanted to qualify back in 2010, but it took me 12 years because of various reasons. Never feel bad that you’re running late…Second is dedication and the third thing is a to-do attitude. It’s a very difficult exam and the dates are announced only 30-40 days before the actual exams…keep up-to-date with the developments, because all these exams are very analytical or case-study based questions. There are no direct questions in the exams, they are all scenario-based. One needs to keep themselves updated with the recent developments in the legal field in the UK.
  7. On Last Week the Kerala High Court advised judges and other judicial officers in Thrissur district not to take part in organising Kodathi Vilakku (court lamp), an event that is hosted annually at the Guruvayoor Temple.
    • the memo said, While there can be no objection to the members of the Bar Association organizing such events, either individually or collectively, the use of the name “Kodathi Vilakku, is unacceptable for it gives the impression that the courts in our State are in some way connected with the organization of the event….As secular democratic institutions under the Constitution, the courts cannot be seen engaging in activities that promote any particular religion.
    • the memo underscored, They shall also not feel compelled or obliged to attend the event.
    • the memo stated, The fact that judicial officers of all ranks, including those professing other religions, feel compelled/obliged to attend the annual event that is invariably attended by the High Court Judges as well, indicates the extent to which the term “Kodathi Vilakku” can be misleading.
  8. A special court in Gurugram has issued warrant of arrest against journalist and news-anchor Deepak Chaurasia for allegedly airing ‘morphed, edited and obscene’ videos of a 10-year-old girl and her family and linking it to the sexual assault case against godman Asaram Bapu.
    • the Court ordered, The bail of the applicant-accused Deepak Chaurasia is cancelled. His bail bond and surety bond are cancelled and forfeited to the State. Warrant of arrest against accused Deepak Chaurasia be issued for 21.11.2022. Notice to his surety under Section 446 CrPC and his identifier be also issued for the date fixed.
    • The case relates to a first information report (FIR) registered on the complaint of the child’s relative in December 2013. News channels News24, India News and News Nation were accused of airing the video. According to reports, former News 24 managing editor Ajit Anjum, anchor Chitra Tripathi and Chaurasia are among eight people charge-sheeted in the case.
  9. On Monday Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit bid farewell to the Supreme Court his last working day as a judge at the Supreme Court.
    • CJI Lalit said, My journey in this court began through Court no. 1. I was arguing in Bombay and then I came here to mention it before CJI YV Chandrachud. My journey now ends here. I now pass the baton to the son of that man himself and an eminent jurist.
  10. On Monday the Karnataka High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against an accused who claimed that being a customer of prostitution services, he should be absolved under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. (Mohammad Shariff @ Fahim Haji v. State of Karnataka)
    • Justice M Nagaprasanna held, If the contention of the petitioner is accepted that he is a customer and he should be let off, it would be putting a premium on the activities of the petitioner who has indulged in such acts which prima facie meet the ingredients of all the offences alleged against him. Technicality or hyper-technicality cannot mask the allegation of the kind alleged in the case at hand.
    • the judge elaborated, It is not a case where the alleged victim was above 18 years and it is not a case that the Police have conducted a search and unearthed any incident in a particular place which has been used to run a rocket of prostitution.
    • The Court noted, The petitioner is said to have indulged in sexual intercourse with a minor and not stopping at that indulged in videographing the incidents through his phone and is now threatening to make it viral on social media or on any other website.
    • Merely because the victim is the same, it cannot be said that only one crime should have been registered and all of them should be put in one basket as accused in the said crime.
  11. On Monday the Kerala High Court observed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not required to disclose information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), 2005.  (S Rajeev Kumar v. The Director)
    • the Court said in its judgment, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency and the National Intelligence Grid are included in the second schedule to the Act, 2005. Therefore, it can be seen that once CBI is included in the second schedule in contemplation of Section 24 of the Act, 2005, the said organization is not liable to furnish any information.
    • So also, as per Section 8(1)(j) of Act, 2005, there shall be no obligation to give information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is equally important to note that, the appellant, in fact, is seeking third-party information only for his purpose, which is not permitted as per the above-deliberated provision.
  12. On Friday the Supreme Court refused to interfere with a Calcutta High Court order granting anticipatory bail to former Andaman and Nicobar Islands Chief Secretary Jitendra Narain in connection with a gang-rape case.  (State through SHO v. Jitendra Narain)
    • A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Krishna Murari noted that the interests of justice would be met if the accused were to approach the concerned sessions court for extension of anticipatory bail.
    • the Court ordered, Let the party approach sessions court on November 9 and let the matter be decided by November 11.
    • After a woman accused Narain of rape and sexual abuse, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) placed him under suspension and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. The allegations include having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on two occasions without her consent. A first information report (FIR) was registered against him on October 1.
    • Narain’s counsel had told the Delhi High Court last month that the FIR against his client was registered on the basis of a complaint by the daughter-in-law of a person who was removed from service after Narain passed an order imposing a minor penalty on him.
  13. Supreme Court judge Justice Bela M Trivedi in her concurring judgment in the Economic Reservation case said that it is time to revisit the reservation/ affirmative action system followed in India.
    • However, at the end of seventy-five years of our independence, we need to revisit the system of reservation in the larger interest of the society as a whole, as a step forward towards transformative constitutionalism.
    • Justice Trivedi’s judgment said, Therefore, similar time limit if prescribed, for the special provisions in respect of the reservations and representations provided in Article 15 and Article 16 of the Constitution, it could be a way forward leading to an egalitarian, casteless and classless society.
    • Its laws are directed to the problems made manifest by experience, and its discriminations are based on adequate norms. Therefore, the constitutional amendment could not be struck down as discriminatory if the state of facts are reasonably conceived to justify it.
    • Justice Trivedi opined, Treating economically weaker sections of the citizens as a separate class would be a reasonable classification, and could not be termed as an unreasonable or unjustifiable classification, much less a betrayal of basic feature or violative of Article 14.
    • she emphasised, As laid down by this Court, just as equals cannot be treated unequally, unequals also cannot be treated equally.
    • Justice Trivedi held, They cannot be treated at par with the citizens belonging to the general or unreserved category.
    • In absence of any obliteration of any of the constitutional provisions and in 19 absence of any alteration or destruction in the existing structure of equality code or in the basic structure of the Constitution, neither the width test nor the identity test as propounded in Kesavananda could be said to have been violated in the impugned Amendment.
  14. On Monday the Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit said that he has to a large extent fulfilled the promises he had made when he took over as the CJI on August 27 this year.
    • he said, As I stand before you I remember some promises I made. I said I will try to streamline listing, see regular matters are listed, ease mentioning part and have one Constitution bench running. To certain extent, I have fulfilled them.
    • he stated, Since I took over we disposed off 10,000 cases against a filing which was 8,700 and about 13,000 cases were disposed of which were lying in defects. So to certain extent we have taken a slice from the mounting arrears.
    • Justice Chandrchud said, I want to share relationship between our families travel very long back in time. CJI Lalit’s father had worked as a junior in my father’s chamber in Mumbai.
    • Justice Chandrachud said, I found that CJI Lalit was collaborative. He was always consultative and he was compassionate….. The large gathering today showering praises is not just as accolades but also the work that you have done to uplift the institution. as your successor I have very big size shoes to fill.
  15. The Supreme Court E-Committee headed by Justice DY Chandrachud has constituted a three-member panel of High Court judges to develop and implement a uniform and unique citation for apex court judgments.
    • The committee has been tasked with developing an independent citation system capable of scaling it up.
    • The committee will soon be inviting views and suggestions from stakeholders.
  16. On Monday A commercial court in Bengaluru directed Twitter to temporarily block twitter handles of Indian National Congress (INC) and its mass movement, Bharat Jodo Yatra in a copyright infringement suit initiated by MRT Music (plaintiff) alleging that the handles illegally used sound records of film KGF-Chapter 2.  MRT Music vs Indian National Congress and Ors.)
    • the Court stated, Plaintiff has specifically produced CD showing the side by side file i.e., original version of his copyrighted work with that of the illegally synchronized version. These prima facie materials available before this court at this stage establishes that if same is encouraged plaintiff who is in the business of acquiring cinematography films, songs, music albums etc., will be put to irreparable injury and further same leads to encouraging the piracy at large.
    • the order stated, This court is convinced that object of granting an injunction would be defeated by delay if commissioner is not appointed to make local inspection. Accordingly, Sri. S.N. Venkateshmurthy, District System Administrator of Computer Section, Commercial Court, Bengaluru is appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the defendants 1 to 3 website, conduct electronic audit and preserve the infringing materials available in the above social media and prepare inventory of the same and store the same in this court’s systemand separate CD.
  17. On Mondal While concurring with two other Supreme Court judges in upholding the constitutional validity of the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act which provided for reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Justice JB Pardiwala said that reservation should not continue for an indefinite time.
    • the judgment said, As larger percentages of backward class members attain acceptable standards of education and employment, they should be removed from the backward categories so that the attention can be paid toward those classes which genuinely need help.
    • The idea of Baba Saheb Ambedkar was to bring social harmony by introducing reservation for only ten years. However, it has continued past seven decades. Reservation should not continue for an indefinite period of time so as to become a vested interest.
    • It may be perceived as a first step in the process of doing away with caste-based reservation.
    • The 103rd Amendment offers a basis not frowned upon by Article 15(1) or 16(2) for providing a population generic and caste/religion/community neutral criteria. It also harmonizes with the eventual constitutional goal of a casteless society.
    • The expression refers to all weaker sections and in particular the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Inasmuch as, if we confine the meaning of the expression “weaker sections” only to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or the likes, namely backward class, then it will expose the weaker sections of citizens, other than the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and backward class people to exploitation without any protection from it.
    • Real solution, however, lies in eliminating the causes that have led to the social, educational and economic backwardness of the weaker sections of the community. This exercise of eliminating the causes started immediately after the Independence i.e., almost seven decades back and it still continues.
  18. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment that grants 10 percent reservation to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) among the forward castes is unconstitutional for excluding the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from reservation, Justice S Ravindra Bhat of the Supreme Court said in his dissenting opinion.
    • the judge held, Introducing the economic basis for reservation – as a new criterion, is permissible. Yet, the “othering” of socially and educationally disadvantaged classes – including SCs/ STs/ OBCs by excluding them from this new reservation on the ground that they enjoy pre-existing benefits, is to heap fresh injustice based on past disability.
    • the judge opined, The net effect of the entire exclusionary principle is Orwellian, which is that all the poorest are entitled to be considered, regardless of their caste or class, yet only those who belong to forward classes or castes, would be considered, and those from socially disadvantaged classes for SC/STs would be ineligible.
    • the judge added, The total and absolute exclusion of constitutionally recognised backward classes of citizens – and more acutely, SC and ST communities, is nothing but discrimination which reaches to the level of undermining, and destroying the equality code, and particularly the principle of non-discrimination.
    • he pointed out,The Sinho Commission Report itself is a testimony to the fact that amongst the entire population of STs, 48% are the poorest; amongst the entire population of Scheduled Castes 38% are the poorest and amongst the OBC’s no less than 33% are the poorest.
    • Justice Bhat said, Permitting the breach of the 50% rule as it were through this reasoning, becomes a gateway for further infractions whereby which in fact would result in compartmentalization; the rule of reservation could dealt well become rule of equality or the right to equality, could then easily be reduced to right to reservation – leading us back to the days of Champakam Dorairajan.
    • the judge held, For these reasons, the insertion of Article 15(6) and 16(6) is struck down, is held to be violative of the equality code, particularly the principle of non- discrimination and non-exclusion which forms an inextricable part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  19. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment that grants 10 percent reservation to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) among the forward castes is unconstitutional for excluding the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from reservation, Justice S Ravindra Bhat of the Supreme Court said in his dissenting opinion.
    • Justice Bhat and CJI Lalit dissented, The Amendment Act provides for reservation of 10 percent 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.
    • the judge held, Introducing the economic basis for reservation – as a new criterion, is permissible. Yet, the “othering” of socially and educationally disadvantaged classes – including SCs/ STs/ OBCs by excluding them from this new reservation on the ground that they enjoy pre-existing benefits, is to heap fresh injustice based on past disability.
    • the judge opined, The net effect of the entire exclusionary principle is Orwellian, which is that all the poorest are entitled to be considered, regardless of their caste or class, yet only those who belong to forward classes or castes, would be considered, and those from socially disadvantaged classes for SC/STs would be ineligible.
    • the judge added, The total and absolute exclusion of constitutionally recognised backward classes of citizens – and more acutely, SC and ST communities, is nothing but discrimination which reaches to the level of undermining, and destroying the equality code, and particularly the principle of non-discrimination.
    • he pointed out, The Sinho Commission Report itself is a testimony to the fact that amongst the entire population of STs, 48% are the poorest; amongst the entire population of Scheduled Castes 38% are the poorest and amongst the OBC’s no less than 33% are the poorest.
    • Justice Bhat said, Permitting the breach of the 50% rule as it were through this reasoning, becomes a gateway for further infractions whereby which in fact would result in compartmentalization; the rule of reservation could dealt well become rule of equality or the right to equality, could then easily be reduced to right to reservation – leading us back to the days of Champakam Dorairajan.
    • the judge held, For these reasons, the insertion of Article 15(6) and 16(6) is struck down, is held to be violative of the equality code, particularly the principle of non- discrimination and non-exclusion which forms an inextricable part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  20. On Monday Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held in the case relating to reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Provisions in Articles 15 and 16 enabling reservation for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) do not form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. (Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors.)
    • the judgment stated, It is beyond doubt that using the doctrine of basic structure as a sword against the amendment in question and thereby to stultify State’s effort to do economic justice as ordained by the Preamble and DPSP and, inter alia, enshrined in Articles 38, 39 and 46, cannot be countenanced. This is essentially for the reason that the provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, providing for reservation by way of affirmative action, being of exception to the general rule of equality, cannot be treated as a basic feature.
    • Justice Maheshwari said in his judgment, Exclusion of the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections, being in the nature of balancing the requirements of nondiscrimination and compensatory discrimination, does not violate Equality Code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
    • Justice Maheshwari held, In this background, reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
    • the judgment said, Reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent, in addition to the existing reservations does not result in violation of any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India on account of breach of the ceiling limit of fifty per cent. because, that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
    • he said, Viewing this affirmative action of EWS reservation from the standpoint of backward class versus forward class is not in accord with the very permissibility of compensatory discrimination towards the goal of real and substantive justice for all.

Legal Prudent Fraternity