That's what I wanted.
First, they acknowledge that there is something wrong with the way the quota decision was taken:
The way in which this decision was taken exemplifies what is wrong with the policy-making process in our country. A major decision affecting the career prospects of lakhs of students every year was taken without careful deliberation and transparent procedures that could have inspired some confidence.
They follow it up with the key observation:
Even a crude caste-bloc based quota is better than no provision at all.
Then, they talk about what the pitfalls of this 'crude caste-bloc based quota' are, and they are familiar to us:
... [It will] result in an inefficient targeting of this scheme. The relatively better off families, that too from 'upper' OBCs, will be able to corner most of the benefits.
In regional terms, students from south India and other states with long history of affirmative action and backward caste movement are much better placed to take advantage of this scheme.
Needless to say, most of these opportunities will be cornered by OBC men, for the gender gap in education is higher among OBC communities as compared to upper caste Hindus.
Yet, ..., yet, they still suggest some ways of making the quota regime serve (at least some of) its key goals. They are:
First, it can declare that the 'creamy layer' within OBCs will be excluded from the benefits of the new reservation.
... Second, the 27 per cent quota should be sub-divided among 'upper' and 'lower' OBCs.
Third, the government can make some provision to ensure that OBC women have a special opportunity to access this quota. Finally, for taking a final decision on all these and related matters to target the OBC quota more effectively, the government can constitute an independent expert committee to work out the modalities.
I hope in the on-going public-interest-lawsuit in the Supreme Court, these smart, thoughtful people will be invited to present their views.