  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.'' In order to justify their
controversial decision, majority justices rely on technical arguments which are
categorically false. The confusion of the majority justices is due to a
combination of two related but subtle technical aspects of the affirmative
action system in India. The first aspect is the significance of overlaps
between members of various protected groups, and the second one is the
significance of the processing sequence of protected groups in the presence of
such overlaps. Conventionally, protected classes were determined by the caste
system, which meant they did not overlap. 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 these
changes in the system, 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 avoids the controversial exclusion. One of these
policies is in line with the core arguments in the majority opinion, whereas a
second one is in line with those in the dissenting opinion.
