Starting with Thakur, this paper travels through the mediatory role of the courts in resolving serious controversies over reservation; it examines if opposition to reservation has any constitutional basis; and argues that the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution is valid in its entirety. It also argues that a casteless society cannot be read in the Constitution, the fifty-percent limit on reservations is not a binding norm, and that the determination of the validity of laws included in the Ninth Schedule on the ground of breach of the basic structure of the Constitution may remain a myth. In sum, the paper supports the constitutional provisions and parliamentary initiatives for reservation.