Informed Neutrality in Minimalist Market Design: A Case Study on a Constitutional Crisis in India

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.