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
#JarnailSingh

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan continues hearing

Court said, Mr Sankaranarayanan, AG Argued in the Jarnail Singh reservation on the basis of population, then what can we do, we cannot go against Jarnail Singh.

Sankaranarayanan- Milords on the basis of representation in the houses reservation of Anglo's has been done away with and the SC/ST continues.
That is why 334 provided a timeline. There has to be some sort of timeline with reference to reservation also.

Sankaranarayanan added, Milords, the OBC + SC + ST will be more than 50% that is why the inadequacy, this has not been addressed in the Jarnail Singh or Indira Sawhney.

It's my hope that this branch of law will come to an end, it's been 80 years now and we are still continuing.

Sankaranarayanan added, Even this 109 is inconsistent and in aspect of cadre, the argument that was taken that it was unworkable as In Tripura there was a question that we have not performed this exercise before Nagaraj, it says, you must have weighty and comparable data.

Sankaranarayanan: The lion's share in the SC is not getting the benefit of the reservation, that is why we need to have a review. Looking at the very heart of the Constitution that provides benefit of the reservation was 10 years which was then extended by an amendment.

The end point has to be clear, we have national commissions for the SCs and STs in 338 and 338A, these commissions should perform the review, whatever the reservation in promotion to ensure that the adequacy is being achieved, Sankaranarayanan added.

Sankaranarayanan: In our preamble we talk about, we should work upon the castles society, it's very unfortunate that in the ACR when appraisal is done there is a form, I don't want to know what is the cast of the people I'm working with.

I strictly believe that this must stop the stain that we have on our nation, Sankaranarayanan submits.

Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee making submissions, The reservation has to be on the basis of number of people.

Mukherjee: It was an invitation by the Learned AG and the Court didn't said that you cannot have the proportion as the yard stick.

Court said, It clearly says that you cannot follow proportionality, it is left to the government to decide.

When 5 judges declined the invitation should we now entertain it, Court added.

Government has to weigh it's interest without loosing the sight of 336, Mukherjee concludes arguments.

Sr Adv Dinesh Dwivedi for association of SC/ST starts submissions.

Retrospectivity and Introspectivity was also argued by Mr Dhavan, what are your views on that, the Court asked.

Dwivedi said I'm for retrospective.

Dwivedi added, I know It'll lead to great difficulty all over the Country, but everywhere there is huge amount of reservation the whole system will be upset.

My second point is inadequacy of representation, once these are categorised in cadre and classed cut across cadre, a cadre comprises a limited number of people.
Cadre is a smaller unit. If we start picking out cadres for the reservation it'll lead to chaos, Mukherjee submits

Dwivedi: Milords Jarnail was not a case in which issue of inadequacy was addressed, It is not very fair to pick out a word and then build a castle.

Court: last 4, lines it is in that context only.

Dwivedi: It should be relatable to cadre concerned.

Court: Ok We got you point

Otherwise if all this is so accurate and so precise then why do this court say that this is a matter of subjective analysis, Dwivedi added.

Court: Ok, Mr Dwivedi thank you we'll continue hearing on Thursday.
We have to close it on Thursday.

We have allowed All counsels to submit written submissions.
We'll hear everybody but we'll be short.