Breaking: Madras HC issues notice in petition challenging Economic Reservation

The Madras High Court today issued notice in the plea moved by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) challenging the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 (‘Economic Reservation Act’), which introduces a 10% reservation for those belonging to economically weaker sections of society (EWS)..The Bench of Justices S Manikumar and Subramoniam Prasad issued notice returnable by February 18 after hearing initial arguments made by Senior Advocate P Wilson for the petitioner, and ASG G Rajagopalan for the State..The crux of the petition filed by the DMK’s RS Bharathi is that introducing reservation on economic criteria alone is not permitted by the Constitution. Wilson today argued that reservation was introduced in the interest of communities that are socially and educationally backward because they have been historically oppressed and denied mainstream opportunities. The state cannot introduce new economic criteria, he said..On the other hand, economic status based classification itself was faulted, given its tendency to fluctuate. To illustrate, Wilson pointed out that forward caste persons who lost their property during the the Gaja Cyclone would qualify overnight as persons under the EWS category..Presently, those who earn less that Rs 8 lakh per annum would fall under the category of EWS. The Court was informed that this definition of EWS was a cabinet policy decision taken on January 7, a day before the the Economic Reservation Bill was introduced (and passed) in the Lok Sabha. Further, the government may also change the definition of EWS..While this is the case, Wilson argued that the reservation is only styled as one introduced in the interest of economically weaker persons..“Tomorrow, a person who has an Audi car may come as EWS”, he remarked..He went on to argue,.“Your lorships should not see the form but the substance. The substance is that it is upper caste reservation… [It] affects the basic structure [of the Constitution]…”.Wilson referred to the hurried passage of the Economic Reservation Act to argue that the people’s representatives in Parliament were not given ample time to examine the proposed reservation..Defending the amendments introduced by the Economic Reservation Act, ASG Rajagopalan submitted that the newly introduced Articles 15(6) and 16(6) are only enabling clauses which allows the state to take a call on whether such reservation should be implemented..He also argued that Bharathi, being a Member of the Rajya Sabha which passed the Economic Reservation Bill, cannot now challenge the Act before the Madras High Court. Rajagopalan argued that Bharathi cannot misuse the Court to achieve what he could not achieve in the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha process in this regard binds Bharathi, argued Rajagopal..At this juncture, Justice Subramoniam Prasad observed that since fundamental rights under Articles 14 were involved, and since the same cannot be waived, the petitioner cannot be hindered from approaching the Court..Rajagopalan also contended that the petition was moved in political interest, rather than public interest. It was argued that the case was filed to press the DMK party’s political agenda..Inter alia, it was also submitted that the reservation envisioned by the Economic Reservation Act was a form of vertical reservation. On the other hand, the case laws referred to by the petitioner dealt with communal reservation, said Rajagopalan.