It also stayed proceedings in the Delhi and Bombay High Courts, where similar petitions were filed contending that the Government was misinterpreting the apex court’s judgment on providing OBC reservation as per the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006.

Describing the HC’s ex-parte interim order as “strange”, the Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said, “How can a High Court sit over a judgment passed by us?”

The Bench, also comprising Justices H K Sema and P P Naolekar, added: “Where is the question of stay when the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 has been upheld.”

After Solicitor General G E Vahanvati questioned the legality of the HC order, the Bench said: “We cannot allow the Calcutta High Court order to operate.”

However, the court ordered the Government to make it clear that admissions would be provisional, subject to the final outcome in the matter before it.

The CJI refused to buy the argument of those opposing the government notification for implementation of the quota in PG courses that “graduation” would be the benchmark to determine whether a person is educationally backward or not.

“All this was being said with regard to a class or a community, and not vis-a-vis an individual,” he said. “If majority members of any particular class are graduates, then that community or class would cease to be educationally backward.”

Pointing out that under the Act, every class has to be seen from the view of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), Justice Balakrishnan observed that graduation and creamy layer were “two different concepts”.

Justice Balakrishnan, who headed the Constitution Bench in the OBC quota matter, pointed out that while earlier matriculation was the benchmark for determining the SEBCs, it has been raised to graduation.

He emphasised that “creamy layer” was not applicable to an individual and it would be applicable to a class. “Graduates cannot be clubbed with creamy layer. Social or economic status has to be seen not vis-à-vis an individual but an entire class or community,” he said.

Agreeing that it cannot pass a blanket order to all the HCs telling them not to issue any stay, it said the matter, if required, would have to be placed before the other judges of the Constitution Bench.