New Delhi, April 16: The Centre today requested the Supreme Court to clarify whether a bench has issued an “advice” or a “directive” to keep in abeyance the introduction of OBC quota in higher education.

The clarification will decide how soon the government can lift the freeze on the admission process in the Indian Institutes of Management.

If the court rules that its pronouncement was a directive, the Centre has appealed that the order be vacated.

The third key factor in a petition moved today is a plea to transfer the quota case to a Constitution bench from the current two-judge division bench.

Questioning the relevance of data based on the 1931 census, the court had on March 29 raised doubts about the desirability of going ahead with the quota as scheduled. The Centre had responded by slamming the brakes on the IIM admission process, throwing the institutes and candidates into turmoil.

A futile attempt was made for an urgent hearing on the petition, which came 15 days after the first order.

Solicitor-general G.E. Vahanvati mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat but he refused to entertain it as he was not sitting with the judge who passed the order. Justice Prasad and Justice L.S. Panta had passed the order in March and the case could be taken up only by the same bench.

The government will now have to see whether the two judges will sit together tomorrow. If not, it can request the Chief Justice to constitute the bench.

The Centre’s contention today hinged on the interpretation of one word — “desirable”. The government said the court had ruled that it “may be desirable to keep on hold the operation of the 2006 act (which allows the implementation of the quota)”.

“Desirable” suggests an advice, not a directive, according to the Centre.

The Centre sought to build its case by saying all issues being considered had already been dealt with by a Constitution bench in the original Mandal Commission case of 1992. The then ruling was “binding on all concerned, including the petitioners, the government as well as a two-member bench of this hon’ble court”, the government said.

Perhaps fearing that the court could clarify the order was not an advisory, the government has contented that a vacation of the stay was “in public interest’’ and the balance of convenience lay in declining to stay a law “passed in with virtual unanimity by both Houses of Parliament”.

Adamant on not excluding the creamy layer from the education quota, the government pointed out that the concept devised in the Mandal Commission judgment applied only to reservation in jobs.

Pointing out that the admission process had already begun, the government said any “interruption’’ may cause loss of another year “which will be 57th year of denial after the Constitution” came into effect.