The All India Backward Classes Federation has filed a review petition against the majority judgement of the Constitution Bench upholding the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced provisions for reservation to economically weaker sections (EWS). According to Professor Mohan Gopal's review petition, the majority decisions are based on the incorrect assumption that EWS is structured solely on economic criteria. According to the review petitioner, an economically disadvantaged section eligible for EWS is defined by two criteria: a) family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage, and b) it must not be OBC, SC, or ST (i.e., it shall be part of the socially and educationally forward classes).

The petition says that "EWS is reservation for upper caste/forward classes, with creamy layer exclusion. It is social/caste reservation, not solely economic reservation."

The petition claims that Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Bela M Trivedi incorrectly refer to OBC, SC, and ST reservations as caste-based reservations. However, a caste can be a class, but a backward class is not a caste. It goes on to say that all castes and communities, regardless of caste, religion, region, gender, language, or anything else, who meet certain criteria are entitled to be included on the list of backward classes and to reservations on that basis.

"The recognition of the existence in our society of inequality and therefore "forward" and "backward" classes in their relative rank in the socio-economic order arising from inequality of wealth and power, and the determination to address the inequality by empowering the disadvantaged classes is a cornerstone of the very identity of our Constitution. In these circumstances, the denial by the majority judgments of the very existence of forward classes and the refusal to consider whether exclusionary privilege for forward classes is consistent with the basic structure of the Constitution is a grievous and historical error that needs to be corrected."

It also emphasises that the judgment's assumption that there is no loss or injury to those entitled to the benefits of reservations under 15(4) and 16(4) is unjustifiable and incorrect.

In his decision, Justice J.B. Pardiwala stated incorrectly that OBCs have received political representation and that there are no ceiling limits for reservation for OBC groups. This statement is incorrect because it fails to recognise that the Constitution does not provide for reservations for OBCs in Parliament or State Legislatures, nor does it provide for reservations for OBCs in Panchayats and Municipalities, with the exception of enabling clauses (Article 243-D(6) (Panchayats) and 243-T(6) (Municipalities)) that empower State legislatures to make provision for reservations for OBCs in the concerned local bodies, which has not been done in The statement also fails to recognise that OBC, SC, and ST reservations are all subject to ceilings (for example, 27% for OBCs).

As a result, the petition requests that the judgement be reviewed.