  In a 3-2 split verdict, the Supreme Court approved the exclusion of India's
socially and economically backward classes from its affirmative action measures
to address economic deprivation. Dissenting justices, including the Chief
Justice of India, protested the Majority Opinion for sanctioning "an avowedly
exclusionary and discriminatory principle." To justify their controversial
decision, the majority justices relied on technical arguments that are
categorically false. The confusion of the justices is due to a subtle technical
aspect of the affirmative action system in India: the significance of overlaps
between members of protected groups. Conventionally, protected classes were
determined by the caste system, which meant they did not overlap. The addition
of a new protected class defined by economic criteria alters this structure,
unless it is artificially enforced. The majority justices failed to appreciate
the significance of this critical change and inaccurately argued that the
controversial exclusion is a technical necessity to provide benefits to
previously unprotected members of a new class. We show that this case could
have been resolved with three competing policies that each avoid the
controversial exclusion. One of these policies aligns with the core arguments
in the Majority Opinion, whereas a second aligns with those in the Dissenting
Opinion.
