PRIYA Petitioner
PRIYA Petitioner
PRIYA Petitioner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3. PROVISIONS OF ACT……………………………………………………..........………….4
4. ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………................................……..6
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………….......…………………….....7
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:
AIR, 1993
DYNAMIC LINKS :
http://www.livelaw.in/
https://indiankanoon.org/
https://www.lawyers
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/
http://www.manupatra.com/
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/latest-judgments.html
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949
2. THE 103RD AMENDMENT ACT, 2019
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:
1. State of Ap Vs Balaram
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Mr. KALYAN
…..PETITIONER
v.
UNION OF INDIA
…..RESPONDENT
PROVISIONS OF ACT
The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 violates several basic features
of the Constitution.
1. The State to provide for special reservations for economically weaker section
of citizens.
The above 4 aspects violate the basic features of the Constitution, and
such violation ought to be prevented.
ISSUES RAISED
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court, that the
103rd Constitutional amendment Act, 2019 violates Art. 14 of the const., which is
the foremost basic feature of Constitution.
The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court,
that the 10% additional reservations provided for weaker sections through 103rd
amendment Act, 2019 is in violation to the judgement laid down in Indra
Sawhney case.
The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court, that
providing of reservations only on the basis of economic criteria irrespective of
other factors for backwardness completely backdrops the constitutional norms.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court, that the
103rd Constitutional amendment Act, 2019 violates Art. 14 of the const., which
is the foremost basic feature of Constitution.
From Maneka Gandhi, to Shayara Bano, the value of equality has been repeatedly
emphasized to ensure that equals are not treated unequally. Supreme Court has
upheld the equality code as one of the foremost basic features of the Const. But
in the 103rd amendment Act, the basic structure has been violated in the following
ways :
By way of the present amendments, the exclusion of the OBCs and the SCs/STs
from the scope of the economic reservation essentially implies that only those
who are poor from the general categories would avail the benefits of the quotas.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court, that
the 10% additional reservations provided for weaker sections through 103rd
amendment Act, 2019 is in violation to the judgement laid down in Indra
Sawhney case.
Acc. to Guidelines laid down in Indra Sawhney case is 50% ceiling limit
cannot be breached
The reservations contemplated in Art.15 or Art.16 should not exceed 50%. While
50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration except in
certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of the country and
the people. Extreme caution is to be exercised and unless special case is made
out.
“We reiterate that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the
compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and
The Court specifically states that “As stated above, be it reservation or evaluation,
excessiveness in either would result in violation of the constitutional mandate.”
In case of Balaji Vs State of Mysore, The maximum limit of reservation all put
together should not exceed 50% and if it exceeds, it is nothing but a fraud on the
Constitution. Such fraud cannot be protected through this amendment because it
is not only supressing the meritorious sections but also the other sections.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this hon’ble court, that
providing of reservations only on the basis of economic criteria irrespective of
other factors for backwardness completely backdrops the constitutional norms.
“It follows from the discussion that, a backward class cannot be determined
only and exclusively with reference to economic criterion. It may be a
consideration on basis along with and in addition to social backwardness, but it
can never be the sole criterion. This is the view uniformly taken by this Court
and we respectfully agree with the same.”
In Indira Sawhney Vs UoI, the Apex Court has laid down the rule, that any
legislation or executive action violates the basic structure of Const. would be
unconstitutional or invalid.
MISCELLANEOUS
Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity & good
conscience,