It is indisputable that caste is a reality of our society. However, should caste be the sole basis for identifying the socially and educationally backward for the purpose of reservation? Doesn't it run contrary to the constitutional objective of achieving an egalitarian society? Should we not first conduct a genuine exercise for identification of backwards based on verifiable data and then attempt implementation of any such law? These were some of the issues before the apex court.

While upholding the 27 per cent OBC quota in central educational institutions, including IIMs and IITs, the Supreme Court said 'no' to inclusion of creamy layer in the 27% OBC reservation. The court had made it clear during the hearing that exclusion of affluent among the backwards was a must for the just implementation of reservation policy. It is so because the well-off among the backwards become like the upper class and avail of the benefits to the disadvantage of the most backward segment of the OBC, which deserve the fruits of reservation policy.

The Court is obviously convinced that OBCs, who have been oppressed for centuries, need a helping hand by means of quota and that caste was an accepted form of determination of backwardness as it was the basis for oppression and resultant backwardness.

While the government said there cannot be any time-limit for reservation, all the five judges favoured periodic revision on the implementation of the 27 per cent quota for the OBCs. The Court said reservations should not be in perpetuity but should be revised in periods. This is a welcome decision, since society is going through a period of fast transformation.

It is however unfortunate that the Highest Court of the land had to leave the question of quota in private un-aided institutions open. Four of the five judge bench left the question open, while one judge held that it would be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. One wishes that the Court could have taken a decisive stand on this question as well especially since it had heard marathon arguments from both sides.