Swarup : this the precise scheme of constitution, that we will identify ...this submission is questioning the scheme itself

Gavai J : no they do not question the scheme, their submission is that identification is not correct. they say that amongst that identification, there are certain classifications which are more deserving and therefore allow us to bring equality in the real sense.

Swarup: what is put to me is that there is 39 in Punjab , what is put to me is why cannot the state find that the valmikis and mazhbis deserve extra preference amongst the 50% in view of 16(4)? why is it not an quality doctrine? .....

Nath J : can the state not recognise another class which is not in 341, 342 and 342A?

Swarup: it is been said in Indira Sawhney - 1694) pls do not read it as limiting power

CJI: significantly 16(4) uses the expression backward class it doesn't use the socially and educationally backward classes.

Trivedi : at the same time it has used the word class, not caste or tribe , it would be a class as a whole... backward class which has to be adequately represented that has to be seen not particular caste.. the backward class will include ST/SC/SEBC so that will be class by itself it's not a caste