Like those holding constitutional post group 1

Like those holding constitutional post, group 1 position, etc. as discussed above.
If the seats in higher institutions - if they are not filled in one case - whether they will be
carried forward? No they can’t be carried forward. The seats will go to general category
students then.
Whether the creamy layer concept applies to SC and ST. So in the Indira Sawhney case - no
discussion was made on this point in this case.
Another decision was that - whether caste can play a role in identifying OBC? In this case -
the opinion of the court is that - when you identify on the basis of the caste - it violates
secularism and it violates the concept of casteless society - a society which is inclusive and
therefore the use of the caste in identifying OBC may be valid but desirable is the economic
criteria - you can use both but more important is the economic criteria. And for the higher
caste - you can’t use it for more than 10 years.
Whether article 15 (4) and 15 (5) are mutually contradictory and whether 15 (5) is
unconstitutional? No both can be read harmoniously and not contradictory.
Another point - wider implication for other cases also - what is the standard of judicial review
in affirmative cases? In the cases of reservation if they are before the court that they violate
the consti - then what should be the standard of judicial review and in this case the court said
that court will not apply the strict scrutiny test. The court will not substitute its own
judgement with the judgement of the court. And the legislation shall be narrowly interpreted
so that it may not become unconstitutional - the test of judicial review is strict scrutiny test.
This test will not be applicable.

Strict scrutiny test - in America - in that test there is no presumption of constitutionality of the
legislation. Otherwise the fundamental principle is of presumption of constitutionality and the
second thing is that the court will see what is the purpose of law and it should not merely be
legitimate but must also be sufficiently important and useful. The end which you are trying to
achieve should be important and useful and this is the usefulness or the utility test.
What rights are effected of the person who is challenging? When FR is being violated and
whether the restriction could be covered in the reasonable restriction? So the court will see
the type of right.
Then what is the rational nexus between means and the purpose? What means you are
achieving in order to achieve that purpose? Could you have achieved the same purpose with
less intrusive way to achieve that purpose. Menas was there any easy method and this is
known as the necessity test.
Now the court will see what is the balance between the means and the ends and then on the
basis of this the court will decide whether a particular programme violates the constitution or
not.