The Madras High Court on Monday ordered notices, returnable by February 18, to the Centre and State Government on a case filed by DMK organising secretary R.S. Bharathi challenging the legal validity of the recent amendment made to the Constitution granting 10% reservation in jobs and higher education admission for the economically weaker sections in the open competition category.

A Division Bench of Justices S. Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad directed Additional Solicitor General (ASG) G. Rajagopal to make sure that the Centre puts all its objections in writing by the next date of hearing. The order was passed after hearing preliminary arguments advanced by senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the petitioner.

In his oral reply to the arguments, the ASG accused the petitioner, a Rajya Sabha member, of having filed the case with political motives. He questioned the maintainability of the case when the DMK was very much a part of the process through which the constitutional amendment Bill was passed by the Parliament.

The reply resulted in a heated exchange of arguments between him and Mr. Wilson. However, the judges intervened and insisted on the ASG filing a counter affidavit. During the course of arguments, Justice Prasad posed some probing questions to the senior counsel and wondered whether there was any specific bar under the Constitution to provide reservations on the basis of economic criteria.

In his affidavit, Mr. Bharathi had argued that caste-based discrimination had been plaguing Indian society for about three millenniums. He said the division on the basis of Jati or Varna was due to the contents of the Vedas, particularly the Rig Veda, which differentiates human beings on the basis of their profession.

The arbitrary division created between priests and teachers (Brahmins), warriors and rulers (Kshatriyas), farmers and traders (Vaishyas) and labourers (Shudras) had led to their segregation in all forms of life beginning from dietary habits to social life and caste began to determine the value of a human being, he said.

“The effect of this systemic discrimination was not just economic. It was social and psychological as well. Even if one person from the ‘lower’ caste became rich, he was not permitted to enter the social circles of the ‘upper’ castes… Thus, a parallel nation of untouchables was created,” his affidavit read.

Post-Independence, the Constitution abolished untouchability and reservation was provided for the oppressed and backward classes in education and public employment “to heal the wounds of centuries of discrimination and to uplift the social status of people belonging to these classes.”

Contrary to the intent behind providing reservation for the socially backward communities, the Centre had now enacted the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 enabling the State to make reservation based on the economic criterion alone which was unconstitutional and amounts to altering the basic structure of the Constitution.

“It is not an exaggeration to say that the Bill was foisted on the Lok Sabha,” Mr. Bharathi said and claimed it was rushed through without even providing copies of it to the members of the House in advance.