“It could not be explained as to why a firm data base could not be evolved first, so that the exercise could be undertaken thereafter,” the judges said.

Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium’s argument that seats would be increased to protect the interests of general category candidates failed to impress the Court.

Said the Bench: “By increasing the number of seats for the purpose of reservation unequals are treated as equals.”

Various organisations like the Residents Doctor Association, Youth For Equality, a forum of students and several others including educationists, had opposed the recently enacted legislation enabling 27 per cent OBC quotas.

On the basis that it would lead to a divide in the country on a caste basis, the petitioners had argued, “A time has come to replace vote bank scenario with talent bank as product of the Act’s implementation would be intellectual pygmies rather than normal, intellectual sound students presently passing out.”

Writing for the bench, Justice Pasayat said that the concept of “creamy layer” was part of the Constitutional scheme. “It needs no reiteration that creamy layer rule is a necessary bargain between the competing ends of caste based reservations and the principle of secularism,” the court said.

At the same time, raising a rather significant question on the reservation policy, the court observed, “It needs to be examined as to whether a different form of preferential treatment other than quotas could be employed as at some stage some affirmative action concept can be focused in this direction also.”

... contd.