The reasoning that the number of general category seats will not be affected is not an answer to the broader issue, the judges said. Adding that the reservation policy “cannot be and should not be intended to be permanent or perpetuate backwardness.”

Clarifying that the “State was constitutionally empowered to enact affirmative action measures for backward classes,” the judges added, “Differentiation or classifications for special preference must not be unduly unfair for the persons left out of the favoured groups.”

What the SC said:

• Where is the updated database for OBCs?

• Creamy layer is necessary

• More general candidates would have got in if you had more seats without quotas

• Is there a way other than quotas?

• Equality of opportunity depends not only on absence of disabilities but on presence of abilities

What the Govt is likely to do

• Go back to Bench and ask for review or a vacation of the stay

• Will argue that two-judge Bench can’t over-rule nine-judge ruling in the landmark Sawhney case.

• If OBC list is OK for jobs, why not for college seats?

• Will cite earlier ruling that it is Govt’s right to decide on policy for backward classes, not court’s

• Call all-party meeting to show political consensus

Options in sync with SC order

• Go for comprehensive caste Census

• Or Define backward classes via criteria other than caste, use income or education level of parent

... contd.