Thread by @LawBeatInd

#SupremeCourt continues hearing pleas challenging Madras High Court judgment which had declared the 10.5% internal reservation to the Vanniyar community under the existing 20% reservation to Most Backward Classes by Tamil Nadu Government unconstitutional.
#VanniyarReservation

Senior Advocate P Wilson appearing for the State places before the Court about the Sattanathan Commission, the basic data used was the census data. We want to show the extensive assessment done in the Sattanathan Commission for the implementation of reservation.

Wilson- My submission is that there has been a detailed thorough study in the Sattanathan Commission.

J L Nageswara Rao- All this has been already argued, we have marked all this two three times.
#VanniyarReservation

Wilson- Whatever said in the Amba Shankar report, so far as the sub-clasification is concerned, they wanted to find so far as the 20% reservation given

The majority of the members of the report have not mentioned the methodology adopted.

J Rao- When 7 members of the committee doesn't agreed with the Chairman how can you rely on such report. How can a commission unanimously decide. In a 7 judges bench how can you go with the judgment given by one judge.

Wilson- Milords the whole report was with the government the suggestions of the Chairman and the dissenting arguments of the other members.

Wilson further continues arguing...

J Rao- Since 10:30 we are saying that all this has been argued, you should have divided.

Wilson- The report was available with the government, they had only said that these are our objections.
#VanniyarReservation

J Rao- You can say that the report of the Chairman was accepted by the government though the members of the committee had descended.
#VanniyarReservation

Wilson- The learned judge in the impugned judgment goes to the extent that they had no data...this question was not before the Court.
The ground on which the learned judge concluded that they have no data is not right.
#VanniyarReservation

Wilson- The Janarthanam Report had the quantifiable data and we made it on that basis.
#VanniyarReservation

Senior Advocate Radhakrishnan appearing for petitioner in a connected matter submitted referring to a SC judgment in the Barium Chemicals, "I'm challenging the impugned judgment, erroneous conclusions have been derived and assumptions have been made that there is no data."

Radhakrishnan- Adverting to the impugned judgment, in the given situation it is justifiable what the legislation has done. Equality of opportunity allows discrimination with reason.
#VanniyarReservation

Radhakrishnan- The discrimination if at all if it is there is with reason.
At the end I want to mention, This petitioner has championed the welfare of the Vanniyar, he is 85, I'm greatful to your Lordships.
#VanniyarReservation

Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayanan appearing for the main respondent starts his submissions.
#VanniyarReservation

Shankarnarayanan- In this case there was no consultation with the National Commission for the Backward Classes, which is a mandate in the constitution.
#VanniyarReservation

Shankarnarayan- There was no legislative competence to enact this legislation, the whole act falls to the ground as ultra vires.
#VanniyarReservation

Shankarnarayanan referring to the Maratha Judgement said, only the communities mentioned under article 342A of SEBCs are entitled.

Bench to continue hearing after lunch.

#VanniyarReservation

The bench has reassembled.

Shankarnarayanan continues arguing on the Maratha Judgement.

#VanniyarReservation

Shankarnarayanan - As far as 338 is concerned, any new measure would require a mandatory consultation with NCBC which has not been taken place.
#VanniyarReservation

Shankarnarayanan talking about the issue of taking the 105th amendment as retrospective said, If this kind of measure are allowed, every major principal laid down will be clarified by the Parliament, we are opening the door for them to clarify. They will tell us what the law is.

Shankarnarayanan - The only test to decide if one is retrospective, if the words say so, and if the provision refers to a prior date and neither of those is in the 105th Amendment.
#VanniyarReservation

J Rao- I hope you'll complete tomorrow, Mr Dhavan? because if you don't complete tomorrow we have that Jarnail Singh batch coming day after tomorrow. Try to complete it tomorrow.

The bench to continue hearing the matter tomorrow.
#VanniyarReservation