STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

[1].That the Petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble SC.

It is humbly submitted that the Petition challenging the constitutionality of the “103rd
Amendment” is not maintainable. This amendment, by enabling reservations based solely on
economic criteria, tries to secure the constitutional values, which were considered as the
foundational stone by the makers of the constitution. By introducing the economic criteria as the
sole ground, the parliament strives to promote Equality and social justice at all costs by including
those individuals who are from poor financial background rather than segregating on the basis of
caste and class. The petition is not maintainable as there is no violation of fundamental right of
any Individual.

[2]. That Reservations cannot be granted solely on the basis of Economic criteria.

It is humbly submitted that reservations based solely on economic criteria are constitutional.
Economic criteria not only helps in ascertaining the true individuals who are in dire need of
affirmative action, but also ensures that the state does not have to discriminate individuals by
classifying them under various castes and classes. The ultimate aim of the state is to ensure that
there is casteless and classless society and any benefit thereby must for the economically
unsound individuals. Thus it paves out a way by which the ridiculed age old practice is replaced
by the new one.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[1].That the petition is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bharatpur.

(¶1.)It is humbly submitted that PIL is not maintainable as the 103rd Constitutional Amendment
Act, does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
(¶ 2.)The challenge to the constitutional validity of the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act is
justified as the State has a vital duty to promote social equality and pursue the welfare of weaker
sections of the society as per Article 46 of the Indian Constitution. The Constitutional
Amendment is necessary as it provides fair and equal opportunity for a large number of
impoverished Indians who are excluded from higher educational institutions and are not covered
under existing reservation schemes. Further it is contended that the essence of democracy lies in
giving equal opportunity to all and that can only be achieved by equality.

(¶ 3.)The amendment in question, by introducing reservations solely based on economic criteria,

is considered as a relevant factor in identifying social and educational backwardness. Therefore,
it is a relevant factor for affirmative action under the Constitution of Bharatpur.
(¶ 4.)It is further submitted that the amendment can only be struck down if it alters the basic
structure of the constitution and thereby altering the very identity of the constitution but Articles
15(6) and 16(6) are in conformity with the doctrine of equality and therefore do not violate the
Constitution’s basic structure.
(¶ 5.) The petitioner’s reliance on precedents such as Indra Sawhaney v. Union of India is
misplaced as the facts and the legal principles involved in that case are completely
distinguishable from the present case.

[1.1] That the petitioner has a locus standi in the instant case.
(¶ 6.) It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Petitioner lacks locus standi
in the instant case as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any ground as to how his
fundamental rights are being infringed by the 103rd Constitutional Ammendment Act.
(¶ 7.)That the petitioner interest is nowhere being directly affected as the 50% ceiling limit does
not apply to Article 15(6). As per the legal principles laid down in Indra Sawhaney v. Union of
India, it relates to social and educational backwardness, as enshrined under Articles 16(1) and
16(4), whereas Articles 15(6) and 16(6) are concerned with economic backwardness which is the
basis of present amendment and it should be tested independently.
(¶ 8.) It is further submitted that the present petition lacks merit and should dismissed by the
Court.

[2]. That Reservations can be granted solely on the basis of Economic criteria.

(¶ 9.) It is humbly submitted that the Constitution of Bharatpur upholds the principle of equality
and Article 14 guarantees the Right to Equality, keeping this in view the 103 rd Constitutional
Amendment was necessary as to benefit the economically weaker section of the section of the
society, who were not covered within the existing scheme of affirmative action.
(¶ 10.) It is submitted that In order to do justice across all the weaker sections of the society, it
was therefore considered imperative that the Constitution be appropriately amended to enable the
State to extend various benefits, including reservations in educational institutions and public
employment to the economically weaker sections of the society who are not covered by any of
the existing schemes of reservation and to enable them equal opportunity to get access to
educational institutions and also in matters of employment.
(¶ 11.) That although the purpose of affirmative action, is to address historical injustices and to
uplift socially and educationally disadvantaged groups. Reservations based solely on economic
address those disadvantaged group of Individuals who are not financially that sound and are not
properly represented and the economic criteria thus ensures that all classes of people and all
disadvantage groups are properly represented.
(¶ 12.) It is further submitted that a large share of the total population of India comprises of
lower middle class and people living below the poverty line. The State has an essential duty, as
per the directive of Article 46 to promote educational and economic interests amongst such
weaker section of people.
(¶ 13.) It is submitted that In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India 1, the Honourable Court
held that Economic criteria is considered as one of the essential differentiating factor for
determining social and economic backwardness, as the main aim of the Parliament is to establish
a casteless and classless society.

2
(¶ 14.) It is further submitted that in Vasanth Kumar Court held that the use of economic
criteria as the sole means for the identification of the deprived section of the society. The Court
was of the opinion that attainment of economic equality is the final and only solution to the
besetting problems.
(¶ 15.) That social equality and justice are integral part of the Constitution of Bharatpur and the
vision is to ensure that every section of the society is provided with equal opportunities
irrespective of their social and financial background. Economic criteria serves as the best
possible way in determining and ascertaining the true individuals who are actually being
deprived rather than segregating the society in between caste and class.

[2.1] The 103rd Constitutional Amendment is in pursuance of securing the Constitutional vision
and it does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution of Bharatpur
(¶ 16.) That the basic structure of the Constitution comprises and of certain basic principles,
which as a whole constitute the foundation of entire Constitution and if one of the entity is
removed the whole would fall apart. In Keshvananda Bharati case it was held that a
constitutional amendment should be judged from the point of view that, as to whether if allowed
it will cause a collapse of one of the many foundational stones of the Constitution.
(¶ 17.) The constitutional amendment must be such that, it must have the effect of altering the
very identity of the Constitution and not a mere violation of any of its Articles. The Honourable
Apex Court in Keshvanad Bharti v. Union of India has held that, in deciding as to what to be
avoided and what to be preserved, every Court must take into account the quantum of changes it
causes and whether such an amendment tries to nullify the foundational values of the
Constitution or not.
1
2008 6 SCC
2
1984 SCC 714
(¶ 18.) It is submitted that the newly inserted provisions of Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) are
enabling provisions for advancement of the economically weaker sections and are in fact, in
conformity with the principle of Reservation and Affirmative action, which are the touchstones
of protection of equality of citizens and also the basis under Article 15(1), Article 15(2), Article
16(1) and 16(2). Therefore the concerned Amendment is in conformity with the constitutional
principles and does not violate the basic structure doctrine.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare and hold:

1. To declare the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act as constitutional as it tries to

preserve the Constitutional values and amends the laws so as to propagate equality and
equal opportunity amongst all sections of deprived and disadvantaged individuals.
2. To issue appropriate directions to uphold the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act and to
issue directives so as to prevent Individuals from instituting such false and frivolous
cases which ultimately wastes the valuable time of the Honourable Court.
3. To declare EWS reservations as valid as it tries to rectify the age old process of
determining social and educational backwardness on the basis of caste and class, and
which tries to bring about a more realistic and positive aspect of determining the
backwardness solely on the basis of economic criteria.

AND/OR

4. To pass any other order as the Honourable Court may deem fit, in the interest of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted and for this act of kindness the
counsel for the Respondent shall be duty bound forever pray.

Place: Capital of Union of Bharatpur

Date: 15.04.2024

Sd/-
Counsel for the Respondent