[EWS Quota- Day 3 hearing] We are barred from entering into domain of parliamentary debate: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Constitution bench hearing the petitions challenging the validity of the 103rd Constitutional amendment made it clear that it would not enter the domain of whether the amendment bill was property debated in Parliament or not before being passed as an act. [Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India].A five- judge constitution bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala is hearing the batch of petitions challenging the 10% EWS quota..On the third day of the hearing before the top court, Senior Advocate Dr. KS Chauhan, arguing for the petitioners, submitted that although India is a democracy, the bill which granted 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Section of the society was not properly debated in the Parliament. "We are in a democracy and democracy is based on deliberation. This constitutional amendment bill was passed in Lok Sabha on January 8. In Rajya Sabha on 9th January.. I could not find any debate," Chauhan submitted. .To this, the five-judge bench responded in the negative. Justice S Ravindra Bhat said,"we cannot enter that. We are barred. This does not concern legislation."CJI UU Lalit joined in. "If we are not going to go into it then why debate this?," said the CJI.Justice Bhat added that it was only leading to a "loss of energy.".Chauhan, however, went on to quote former CJI NV Ramana who had remarked during a Republic Day function that deliberations in the Parliament were decreasing, which in turn led to laws being passed in a rushed manner..In an attempt to underline the core issue in the petitions, CJI Lalit observed,"Nobody denies the fact that historical discrimination leads to economic disadvantage as well. Idea with which ews amendment excludes others is because they are already covered under the umbrella of other protective schemes. This is the core issue.".Justice Bhat also told Senior Advocate P Wilson, who had also appeared for the petitioners, that with mere violation of fundamental rights, the court strikes down executive action, "but is such a violation enough to offend basic structure or strike down constitutional amendment?".Advocate Shadan Farasat, arguing for the petitioners, submitted that when a constitutional text is being interpreted the literal rule of interpretation is not followed but the constitutional purpose is seen. "If two interpretations are possible then the one protecting the basic feature of the constitution is taken into account," he contended. He went on to argue that EWS is a different animal as it speaks to the individual on economic condition of an individual."To say you have Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class quota, so you will be denied EWS is fallacious since they target completely different groups," submitted Farasat..Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who will submit his arguments next Tuesday, said that he will argue that establishing that 50% ceiling limit is a part of basic structure."130 judges of this court through 75 years has cemented something down, perhaps there is reason for that to be understood as essence at the heart of quality code," Sankaranarayanan said..The constitution bench before which the petitions challenging the 103rd amendment is primarily hearing arguments on three questions: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?; andWhether 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?.Read about the hearing on Day 2 here..[Read our live coverage of the hearing below]