Thread by @LawBeatInd

#SupremeCourt to continue hearing Jarnail Singh, a matter it had decided in 2018, wherein a constitution bench held that the issue relating to reservation in promotion has already been decided in Nagraj’s matter and needs no reconsideration.
#Reservation

Attorney General KK Venugopal continues making submissions.

There are 53 departments and Maharashtra has 6000 cadres and we asked the Centre that how many cadres are there they said 5000, there for each cadre you'll have to go into quantifiable data, which is a huge exercise and Karnataka appointed a committee for this, Venugopal said.

In cases is it not the responsibility of the State Government to look into the inadequacy in the representation, Court asked.

The time has come for your lordships to give something concrete for the SC/ST promotions, Venugopal said.

As per the roaster the posts are filled automatically, Lordships may consider this also, Venugopal added.

ASG Balbir Singh submits that the data from 1965 to 2007 shows larger percentage of SC ST and OBS in cases of Group A B C D, In Group A there is a shortage and B and C is an excess.

Court- If we accept the roaster system there is a cap...

Singh- Milords this is for the anomaly that was addressed in Nagraj and once the representation is appropriate and posts are filled up roaster stops.

The Court said that representation in Group A is low and instead of meeting that you ensure that there is adequate representation in B & C, this is not acceptable.

Sr Adv Paramjit Patwalia said that only three things have to be looked at the first was backwardness, second is inadequacy in the representation.

Pavitra has to be understood in a holistic view, the committee examined the data from all departments, the percentage was not satisfying that brings out to working out to reservation where Sabarwal comes into play, Patwalia added.

Patwalia further added if we go cadre wise it is a completely unworkable way of reservation.

If we have all the data from all the cadres and data is seen as a whole and then decided that there is a requirement for reservation in promotion, Patwalia added.

Sabarwal was not on initiation but was on implimentation, once it is fulfilled stop the Roaster, Patwalia submits.

Court: The Attorney have submitted a note on issues, we'll take those first and there after here everybody else.
First let us find out these issues then later we'll here individual issues.

I'm also saying that we appointed a committee and working to impliment the, Patwalia appearing for State of Bihar.

Court to resume hearing after Lunch.

Court asks Sr Adv Rajeev Dhawan to argue.

Dhawan referring to the judgment in the case of Nagaraj said, Milords it is that the states are not bound to make reservations, it's not like some Jats will start protesting.

Milords Sabarwal was decided on February 1995 and the ammendment came in June 1995 and Nagarajan came in 96, Dhavan added.

The idea is to maintain a balance, because the reservation is to a positive discrimination, Dhavan submits.

Milords, will have to bare in mind that This guided power is not used arbitrarily, Davan added.

Dhavan says: One aspect is when you catch-up and you must catch-up in a certain time, this is Pradhakar that if one gets ahead of you than he'll remain in place till you reach.

Dhavan:
Milords, When you are dealing with cadre even if you are dealing with post, sampling can not be relied upon because the data has to be complete.

Dhavan said, I have always taken a view that is neither for the reservation side nor from the other side and we need to maintain a balance.

After 70 years of this constitution ever state has to decide...
We cannot not bring equality but enhance the peple so that they can join the race, Dhavan said.

Dhavan concludes arguments,

Court asks Senior Advocate Indira Jaising arguing from the Hospital.

Court asks, Ms Jaising before you start, how are you?

Jaising- Milords, coming to the Hospital has enabled me to identify the problem, we have escaped covid. I'm much better.

Jaising submits, India's constitution is unique in the world in entertaining the provision of reservation, I don't know about any Country with this.

Sr Adv Indira Jaising is appearing for the unreserved category.

Jaising said, Milords, everyone is struggling in the dark, Nagraj is a incomplete judgment, I'm grateful for this that this incompleteness will be filled up.

I dont know what is the tool to measure efficiency and if there is let AG tell what do they use to measure the efficiency of the Government what is the efficiency of Governance, Jaising argues.

Jaising submits, Harvard has published a book on merits, talks about privilege to the privileged and not providing to the underprivileged.
@Harvard
#Reservation
#SCST

Sr Adv Indira Jaising: Mr Dhavan I can only see you, I can't see the Judges.

Court: You can't see us?

Jaising: No Milords I can only see Mr Dhavan, he haunts me...

#CourtLaughs

Court: Ask somebody to assist you.

We need to keep in mind the demography of every state, There are states that has extraordinary population of Tribals. This has to be for the states to decide, Jaising submits.

Milords, it is whose responsibility to tell that what is the data, Central Government through SG comes on record and say we won't show the data as we believe it is not accurate, Jaising added.

There is no other objective for the benchmark other than the population, any other objective will be subjective, Jaising Submits.

Jaising: In Nagaraj I beg to defer that it said the equality is a basic feature of the Constitution. What happened in Keshwanand Bharti I'm ready to accept.

Milords the concern over here is that I must not grab the opportunity which is given to unreserved category, Jaising Submits.

Jaising says, The State must present the data before the Court.

Milords, I want to add, the Madhya Pradesh Judgment has struck down the roaster and the percentage.

Court- Ok, Ms Jaising thank you very much get well soon, come back fast and running...

Sr Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan starts submissions, says, the first thing that the state has to ask themselves is what is the inadequacy of representation of SC ST in class.

Court to continue hearing tomorrow.