By giving green signal to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the emergence of a new economic class that requires affirmative action. At the time of inception of the Indian Constitution, certain sections of society — who were lagging behind socially on account of historical injustices — were deemed eligible for positive discrimination that would accelerate their mainstreaming into society. Seventy-five years down the line, despite remarkable progress, their assimilation into society is not quite complete. Caste discrimination is still not a thing of past and untouchability — albeit with changed names — prevails in certain pockets of the country. Now, first the Central government and then the apex court, by approving reservation for EWS category, have erected a new vertical that needs affirmative action. This new section is by and large the by-product of 1990 economic liberalisation, accentuated further by the hyper-capitalistic approach pursued over the past decade. Amid towering claims of economic progress, the EWS quota reaffirms, we have taken a few steps backward in the course of time. What else can explain the radical shift in the conception of affirmative action! What is more problematic is that this new approach to affirmative action is contradictory — or disjoint at least — to the notion envisaged by our constitution framers. The exclusion of Backward Classes, SCs and STs from the new income criterion puts the new quota in an altogether different league, and is tantamount to violation of equality of opportunity. The most basic question before the court was whether the EWS quota violated the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. While the bench unanimously averred that introduction of an economic criterion does not violate the basic structure of Constitution, it was divided on the issue of exclusion of SCs, STs and BCs. Importantly, justices UU Lalit and Ravindra Bhatt, in their dissent note, highlighted that the exclusion of aforementioned sections from the new form of affirmative action would violate the equality norm. Parliament's prerogative to introduce a new criterion, and the Supreme Court's decision to validate and respect it, are both justifiable to a certain extent, but the exclusion of eligible candidates has raised eyebrows, and rightly so. The next important question is regarding the breach of the 50 per cent ceiling, as established in the Indira Sawhney case. The apex court played safe by not explicitly mentioning the case in its verdict. Notably, to reverse the mandate of the Indira Sawhney verdict, the SC might have needed a nine-judge or greater bench, and not a five-judge bench. The majority in the bench held that the 50 per cent ceiling is applicable only to caste-based quotas and not for EWS reservation. This twin approach to upliftment of historically deprived backward social classes and currently lagging economic sections, separately, opens up a dual front that would be hard to handle. Ironically, while Bela M Trivedi emphasised on "an egalitarian, casteless and classless society" by prescribing a time limit to reservation, the majority verdict only appears to perpetuate it and even make it more complex. Immediately after the Supreme Court verdict, BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis hailed it, and hinted on implementation of Maratha quota in Maharashtra. It should not come as a surprise if more sections ramp up their demands for reservations. By green signalling the EWS quota, the Supreme Court has narrowed the grounds on which it could counter such demands. Unfortunately, rather than taking the phenomenon of reservation towards a conclusive and meaningful end, policymakers appear to have decided to broaden its ambit. Given the political sensitivity of the reservation issue, it is tempting for political parties to take it up and gain votes by catering to demands of specific sections. However, by doing so, they might be taking the policy discourse in the wrong direction. Creation of a new EWS category is a failure on the part of successive governments in ensuring growth of variegated sections of society. Rather than making a course-correction through governance-based interventions, the Central government has decided to stir up a hornet's nest that would torment us for long.