Read 15 comments in conversation as:
Excerpts:

"If there were no reservations for untouchables, I would not have been admitted to the National Law School, Bangalore, and would not have become a lawyer. "

"When we worked together in 2004, one of the first things you did at the start of the Gujarat National Law University project was to organise a Hindu ritual presided over by Brahmin priests. Can you imagine a casteless society in which a new university project begins with a Hindu ritual presided over by untouchables? Will Brahmins voluntarily give up their exclusive entitlement to carry out Hindu religious ceremonies?"

"When I was looking to get married, between April 2004 and June 2006, I contacted several women on matrimonial websites, including some from the privileged castes. The names of the elite educational institutions on my resume – Columbia Law School, New York and National Law School, India – attracted many of them. But then they would ask me about my caste identity. The moment I revealed I was an untouchable, they were not interested in me anymore. Do you think those women and their families will stop poking and probing prospective spouses about caste when you take away the reservations for untouchables? (Note: my wife is a lovely woman born to parents of privileged castes who recognised my worth beyond my caste identity.)"

"Your brother judge Justice Pardiwala has stated that BR Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution, wanted reservations to end within 10 years of their commencement. He does not cite any source for his assertion. In fact, as my fellow untouchable brother Anurag Bhaskar demonstrated in this note, this is patently false."

https://scroll.in/article/1037604/why-reservations-matter-a-letter-to-justice-trivedi-from-an-untouchable-ex-colleague
A 23-word comment posted 1 week ago was not published.
Academic critique of constitutional bench judgement is welcome. Better way would have been to have himself impleaded (as he has means and stature to do so) in the proceedings and advance arguments/make submissions than to rant out after the judgement.
Implead on what grounds? That I am a (potentially) affected party? As if SC would ever allow that! There would be thousands of parties intervening in the case then, and barely any useful hearings would happen.
An incendiary and illogical article. Completely disagree with him. He himself says he got into NLSIU with reservation. Because of that he got entry into Columbia. Herbert Smith etc. His children will be entitled to the same benefit, should they want to exercise it. Justice Trivedi's decision merely means that a poor Brahmin or Kshatriya or Vaishya or Sikh or Parsi or non-Dalit Christian or non-Dalit Muslim will also get such an opportunity. Why should the child of a Sikh or Vaishya taxi driver be entitled to no benefit while the child of an NLSIU-Columbia grad and ex-Big 7 partner be entitled to it? What is he getting at here??

Regarding matrimonial sites, the user base is socially conservative and they are bound to stick with people of their own community. Would Muslim women on Shaadi.com have accepted him? Even a Sunni Muslim woman won't accept a Shia man on such websites. Does it make those women communal? Of course not.

Regarding a Hindu ritual at GNLU, it is ludicrous and mischievous to read casteism into it. Every Bollywood production has a ritual where a coconut is broken. Actors of all faiths and castes do so. Regarding Brahmin priests, I'm sure Justice Trivedi didn't handpick priests! She probably asked some assistant to arrange it and that guy must have called up a local agency or contact.
1st para: because reservation is not a poverty alleviation scheme? And no, if children of communities are actually lacking in representation, they can be classified under SC/ST/OBC too and get the affirmative action rights. The criteria for reservation is far more holistic than under the EWS criteria, which is patently unjust. Or as the minority judgement said, it threatens to tear apart the social fabric of equality.

2nd para: 'trans-formative constitutionalism' is a tool for constitutional interpretation. According to it, you do not take the most base view prevalent in the society and act according to it. You take into consideration the the constitutional ideals. Matrimonial advertisements should not carry casteist or communal preferences upfront. These advertisements are for the public and reasonable restriction are important.

3rd para: assuming he does not support any idea that only a priest born into a certain caste can perform holy functions, it was a public event and she should have stopped it. The public space are not reserved for casteism.

And I am assuming that you agree that she is incorrect on "facts" about Dr Ambedkar's statement and her proposition that reservations should end (you want them for all communities, right?) is baseless.
Regarding your point about matrimonial websites, yes it certainly makes all those people communal. That's the very definition. Communalism is not restricted within one religion or faith.
With regard to Trivedi's decision, the problem is that the EWS also leaves out poor reserved category students! Based on your own argument, if the reserved seats get taken by the rich SC/ST/OBC students (which actually does not always happen in reality as per any scientific study actually conducted), and the poor Savarna people take up the EWS seats, then what happens to the poor Dalits? If it is only based on economic criterion, then it makes no sense to exclude anyone who qualifies on the basis of that criterion. Or else don't call it EWS, but poor Savarna reservation.
Why are all these posts so quick to highlight which NLU the person studied in?
EWS people are more deserving of reservation than privileged scheduled castes like him. It is madness that he wants us to overlook economic disparities.
A case has been filed recently about challenging the EWS threshold. If earning up to 8 LPA qualifies me for getting reservations on economic criterion, then my income up to 8 LPA should be tax-exempted. Which is an argument not entirely devoid of logic.
It has been not more than 20+ years that reservation has been in effect on an all India basis. And, people have a problem. For hundreds of years, the ancestors of most of such people, who have a problem now, had no difficulty or issues discriminating the ancestors of the benefactors of reservation today. People were not allowed to educate or work with dignity or work at all. They were pushed to dark ages for years and years and years. Now, if they have taken just more than 2 decades, everyone has problem. Judgment after judgment - diluting reservation. Please scrap it, if inequality is what everyone likes. Why to create a facade of an equal and a progressive society?
Stop all reservation!!! We are weeks away from the SCOTUS quashing affirmative action. These misguided socialist policies are past their expiry date.
Stop living off dad's money and privileges in your childhood. No need for reservation.