The Supreme Court on Thursday while observing that the concept of creamy layer cannot prima facie be considered to be irrelevant went on to affirm, “The creamy layer rule is a necessary bargain between the competing ends of caste-based reservations and the principle of secularism. It is part of the Constitutional scheme.”

However, the Bench noted with pain that “Nowhere else in the world is there competition to assert backwardness and then to claim we are more backward than you.”

Although the state was constitutionally empowered to enact affirmative action measures for backward classes, the court said “differentiation or classification for special preference must not be unduly unfair for the persons left out of the favoured groups”.

Taking note of the contention of anti-quota propagandist that the policy of reservation cannot be and should not be intended to be permanent or perpetuate backwardness, the Bench said, “It remains to be examined whether a different form of preferential treatment other than quotas could be employed as at some stage an affirmative action concept can be focused in this direction also.”

The court brushed aside the argument of the Centre that the number of seats available for General Category students was not affected and said “that is really no answer to the broader issue”.