Supreme Court Audio Transcript

Transcript:
parts of the... Grateful, My Lords. Come back after lunch. Which is the judgment you want us to see? I was on Chinnaiah My Lord, which is Volume V, fifth bookmark. Yes, we got it. The theme is the same actually, that, they say that, "sub-classification which is committed in Indra Sawhney for OBCs is not permissible for SCs. Because they say it's one homogeneous class." That's right. "And therefore, once Parliament has designated certain castes or tribes or races as Scheduled Castes, you cannot further sub-group sub- classify." They use that expression, right? 'Sub-divide, sub-classify or sub-group.' That's the theory, really. One is that. And your contention is that Parliament's power to designate is very different from the state's power to implement reservations under 16(4). And they have not done and therefore had due regard to the ambit of Article 16 (4), I think that is your submission. That's the issue of identification, and this is the issue of implementation. Implementation. That's right. They have not considered the interplay between 16(4) and 341. That's right. None at all. In fact, argued by Mr. Venugopal, but not considered at all. So, Article 341 is all about? Identification. The identification. Identification/inclusion and exclusion of caste. Inclusion and exclusion. While 16(4) is conferring of benefits on those who are not adequately represented in services. Which paragraph were you on? I was on 26. I just read 26 before they.... Yes, there is 31 also. 31 says, "sub-classification is beyond legislative competence under entry 41 of list 2 and entry 25 of list 3." Then para 38, they say, "subclassification, which is permitted in Indra Sawhney for