Hubbry Logo
Other Backward ClassOther Backward ClassMain
Open search
Other Backward Class
Community hub
Other Backward Class
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Other Backward Class
Other Backward Class
Other Backward Class
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Other Backward Class (OBC) is a collective term used by the Government of India to classify communities that are "educationally or socially backward" (i.e., deprived/disadvantaged). It is one of several official classifications of the population of India, along with general castes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs and STs). The OBCs were found to comprise 52% of the country's population by the Mandal Commission report of 1980 and were determined to be 41% in 2006 when the National Sample Survey Organisation took place.[1][2][3] There is substantial debate over the exact number of OBCs in India; it is generally estimated to be sizable, but many believe that it is higher than the figures quoted by either the Mandal Commission or the National Sample Survey.[4]

In the Indian Constitution, OBCs are described as socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC), and the Government of India is enjoined to ensure their social and educational development — for example, the OBCs are entitled to 27% reservations in public sector employment and higher education. The list of OBCs maintained by the Indian Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment is dynamic, with castes and communities being added or removed depending on social, educational, and economic factors. In a reply to a question in Lok Sabha, Union Minister Jitendra Singh informed that as of January 2016, the percentage of OBCs in central government services is 21.57% and has shown an increasing trend since September 1993.[5] Likewise, in 2015, at educational institutions, funds meant for OBC students under the reservation policy were not used properly or were underused in cases of upgrading infrastructure as well as in violation of faculty recruitment of OBCs according to the 49% reservation policy.[6]

Until 1985, the affairs of the Backward Classes were looked after by the Backward Classes Cell in the Ministry of Home Affairs. A separate Ministry of Welfare was established in 1985 (renamed in 1998 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment) to attend to matters relating to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBCs.[7] The Backward Classes Division of the Ministry looks after the policy, planning, and implementation of programmes relating to social and economic empowerment of OBCs, and matters relating to two institutions set up for the welfare of OBCs, the National Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation and the National Commission for Backward Classes.

Government obligation

[edit]

Under Article 340 of the Indian Constitution, the government must promote the welfare of the OBCs.

The president may by order appoint a commission consisting of such persons as he thinks fit to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC) within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the union or any state to remove such difficulties and as to improve their condition and as to the grants that should be made, and the order appointing such commission shall define the procedure to be followed by the commission. ... A commission so appointed shall investigate the matters referred to them and present to the president a report setting out the facts as found by them and making such recommendation as they think proper.

— Article 340 of the Indian Constitution

A 1992 decision of the Supreme Court of India resulted in a requirement that 27% of civil service positions be reserved for members of OBCs.[8] In a reply to a question in Lok Sabha, Union Minister Jitendra Singh informed that as of January 2016, the percentage of OBCs in central government jobs is 21.57%.[5]

Socio-economic status

[edit]

There existed a huge disparity among various castes and communities classified as Other Backward Class, even before the implementation of the reservation policy in government jobs and educational institutions, as per the recommendation of the Mandal Commission report. While a major section of Other Backward Castes was extremely backward, there existed a section that owned considerable land and employed Scheduled Castes (SC) as agricultural labourers. In the agitation for implementation of the report of Mandal Commission, Scheduled Castes supported the Other Backward Castes, but after the implementation of these recommendations on the direction of Supreme Court of India, the tension between a section of OBCs and SCs increased.[9]

In some states of North India, the Yadavs, Kurmis, and the Koeris, which were called "upper-OBC", were well off, due to ownership of a sizeable amount of land.[9] The abolition of Zamindari system in post-independence India raised many of the members of these communities to the status of landlords.[10] Following the Green Revolution in India, their landholdings and economic prosperity increased further; they acquired education and became an active participant in government jobs. Further, after the Mandal agitation subsided in North India, OBC leaders gained political power to outnumber the upper caste legislators in most of the north Indian states. This led to the formation of the OBC-led government in many states of North India. They also ended up claiming the high ritual status, which is defined as Sanskritisation.[9]

However, the OBC consolidation in some of the states of north India like Bihar, left many other OBC communities away from the development process. The political and economic prosperity was cornered by the dominant Backward Castes like Koeri, Kurmi and Yadav; this was witnessed in the formation of political blocs in the state after 1995, in which, either side was dominated by these three castes.[11]

Within this section of OBCs called upper-OBC, there also exists disparity in educational attainment and political mobilisation. While the Yadavs were the biggest beneficiary in political achievements, their political progress didn't improve their position in the caste hierarchy and the spread of education among them also remained less as compared to more educationally advanced communities like Awadhia Kurmi, Koeri and Bania. Since the Yadavs were associated with cattle herding in contrast to other upper-OBCs, who were owner cultivators, trespassing into field of landlords and regular struggle with the latter was a challenge for their survival.[12] The mobilisation of Other Backward Class for social-economic ascendancy was not observed at the same pace and in the same manner in different north Indian states. In north India, states like Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh also have substantial populations of Backward Castes, yet, no movement as seen in states like Bihar took place in these states. Many observers have mentioned that in Bihar, the upper OBCs viz. Koeri, Kurmi, and Yadav's political ascendancy went hand in hand with land reforms and peasant movements, benefitting these three castes. These movements changed not only their political position but also their socio-economic profile. However, in the case of Madhya Pradesh, the national political parties like Bharatiya Janata Party and Indian National Congress accommodated the Backward Class in the political structure of the state in a way that socio-political movement of any kind was prevented from taking place.[13]

Demographics

[edit]

Kalelkar Commission

[edit]
Main article: Kalelkar Commission

Adjacent is the distribution of population of each religion by caste categories, obtained from merged sample of Schedule 1 and Schedule 10 of available data from the National Sample Survey Organisation 55th (1999–2000) and National Sample Survey Organisation 61st Rounds (2004–05) Round Survey.[14]

The First Backward Classes Commission was established by a presidential order on 29 January 1953 under the chairmanship of Kaka Kalelkar and submitted its report on 30 March 1955. It had prepared a list of 2,399 backward castes or communities for the entire country, of which 837 had been classified as the "most backward". Some of the most notable recommendations of the Kalelkar Commission were:

  1. Undertaking caste-wise enumeration of the population in the census of 1961;
  2. Relating the social backwardness of a class to its low position in the traditional caste hierarchy of Indian society;
  3. Treating all women as a class as "backward";
  4. Reservation of 70 percent of seats in all technical and professional institutions for qualified students of backward classes.
  5. Reservation of vacancies in all government services and local bodies for other backward classes.

The commission in its final report recommended "caste as the criteria" to determine backwardness. However, the report was not accepted by the government, which feared that the backward classes excluded from the caste and communities selected by the commission might not be considered, and those in most need would be swamped by the multitudes, thus receiving insufficient attention.[citation needed]

Mandal Commission

[edit]
Main article: Mandal Commission

The decision to set up a second backward classes commission was made official by the president on 1 January 1979. The commission is popularly known as the Mandal Commission, its chairman being B. P. Mandal, submitted a report in December 1980 that stated that the population of OBCs, which includes both Hindus and non-Hindus, was around 52 percent of the total population. The commission prepared a list of 3,743 backward castes or communities for the entire country, of which 1,937 had been classified as the "depressed backward class".[15][16] It developed 11 indicators or criteria to identify OBCs, of which four were economic.[17]

Twenty-seven percent of reservations were recommended owing to the legal constraint that the total quantum of reservations should not exceed 50 percent. States that have already introduced reservations for OBC exceeding 27 percent will not be affected by this recommendation. With this general recommendation, the commission proposed the following overall scheme of reservation for OBC:

  1. Candidates belonging to OBC recruited based on merit in an open competition should not be adjusted against their reservation quota of 27 percent.
  2. The above reservation should also be made applicable to the promotion quota at all levels.
  3. Reserved quota remaining unfilled should be carried forward for three years and de-reserved thereafter.
  4. Relaxation in the upper age limit for direct recruitment should be extended to the candidates of OBC in the same manner as done in the case of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
  5. A roster system for each category of posts should be adopted by the concerned authorities in the same manner as presently done in respect to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates.

These recommendations in total apply to all recruitment to public sector undertakings, both under the central and state governments as well as to nationalised banks. All private sector undertakings that have received financial assistance from the government in one form or another should also be obliged to recruit personnel on the aforesaid basis. All universities and affiliated colleges should also be covered by the above scheme of reservation. Although education is considered an important factor in bringing a desired social change, "educational reform" was not within the terms of reference of this commission. To promote literacy the following measures were suggested:

  1. An intensive time-bound programme for adult education should be launched in selected pockets with a high concentration of the OBC population.
  2. Residential schools should be set up in these areas for backward-class students to provide a climate especially conducive to serious studies. All facilities in these schools including board and lodging should be provided free of cost to attract students from poor and backward class homes.
  3. Separate hostels for OBC students with the above facilities will have to be provided.
  4. Vocational training was considered imperative.
  5. It was recommended that seats should be reserved for OBC students in all scientific, technical and professional institutions run by the central as well as state governments. The quantum of reservation should be the same as in the government services, i.e. 27 percent.[citation needed]

NSSO

[edit]
NSSO estimated state wise Other Backward Classes demography[18]
State and Union Territories 2011 Census population Approximate OBC population OBC percentage No of Central OBC Communities
(as of Agaust 2018)
Andaman and Nicobar Islands 380,581 69,000 18.1% 5
Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana) 84,580,777 42,629,000 50.4% 190
Arunachal Pradesh 1,383,727 39,000 2.8% 0
Assam 31,205,576 7,895,000 25.3% 28
Bihar 104,099,452 65,166,000 62.6% 132
Chandigarh 1,055,450 234,000 22.2% 60
Chhattisgarh 25,545,198 11,623,000 45.5% 67
Dadra and Nagar Haveli 343,709 15,000 4.4% 10
Daman and Diu 243,247 92,000 37.8% 44
Goa 1,458,545 261,000 17.9% 17
Gujarat 60,439,692 24,297,000 40.2% 105
Haryana 25,351,462 7,174,000 28.3% 73
Himachal Pradesh 6,864,602 1,174,000 17.1% 52
Jammu and Kashmir 12,541,302 1,430,000 11.4% 23
Jharkhand 32,988,134 15,438,000 46.8% 134
Karnataka 61,095,297 33,908,000 55.5% 199
Kerala 33,406,061 21,814,000 65.3% 83
Lakshadweep 64,473 450 0.7% 0
Madhya Pradesh 72,626,809 30,140,000 41.5% 68
Maharashtra 112,374,333 37,983,000 33.8% 256
Manipur 2,855,794 1,505,000 52.7% 4
Meghalaya 2,966,889 36,000 1.2% 0
Mizoram 1,097,206 18,000 1.6% 0
Nagaland 1,978,502 4,000 0.2% 0
NCT of Delhi 16,787,941 3,274,000 19.5% 56
Odisha 41,974,218 13,935,000 33.2% 197
Puducherry 1,247,953 962,000 77.1% 58
Punjab 27,743,338 4,467,000 16.1% 65
Rajasthan 68,548,437 32,423,000 47.3% 69
Sikkim 610,577 309,000 50.6% 8
Tamil Nadu 72,147,030 54,904,000 76.1% 182
Tripura 3,673,917 603,000 16.4% 42
Uttar Pradesh 199,812,341 108,898,000 54.5% 76
Uttarakhand 10,086,292 1,846,000 18.3% 78
West Bengal 91,276,115 7,941,000 8.7% 98
India 1,210,854,977 532,776,000 44% 2,479
**NFHS Survey estimated only Hindu OBC population. Total OBC population derived by assuming Muslim ABCation in the same proportion as Hindu OBC population.

The National Sample Survey puts the figure at 41% while Mandal commission at 52%.[19] There is substantial debate over the exact number of OBCs in India, with census data compromised by partisan politics. It is generally estimated to be sizable, but higher than the figures quoted by either the Mandal Commission or and National Sample Survey.[20] However, as of 2006, the number of backward castes in Central list of OBCs has increased to 5,013 (without the figures for most of the Union Territories), per National Commission for Backward Classes from 2,399 and 1,743 communities identified the Kalelkar and Mandal commission respectively.[21][22][23]

Sub-categorisation

[edit]

In October 2017, the President of India Ram Nath Kovind notified a five-member Commission headed by Delhi High Court's former Chief Justice G. Rohini under Article 340 of Indian Constitution,[24][25] to explore the idea of OBC sub-categorisation.[26][27][28] The National Commission for Backward Classes had recommended it in 2011 and a standing committee too had repeated this. The committee has a three-point mandate:[29]

  1. To examine the "extent of inequitable distribution of benefits of reservation" among various castes and communities that come under the Central OBC list.
  2. To work out the mechanism, criteria, and parameters for the actual sub-categorisation. The actual OBC reservation will continue to be 27% and within this, the committee will have to do the re-arranging.
  3. Bringing order to the Central list of OBCs by removing any repetitions.

The committee will have to deliver the report within 12 weeks of its constitution.[30] The lower OBCs form around 35% of the population in Uttar Pradesh. OBC sub-categorisation has already been implemented at state level by 11 states: West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir region and Haryana, and the union territory of Puducherry.[31] The term of the commission has been extended to 31 May 2019. Its report stated that prime beneficiaries of 97% OBC reservation include Yadav, Kurmi, Jat (Jats of Rajasthan except those of Bharatpur and Dholpur district are in Central OBC list), Saini, Thevar, Ezhava and Vokkaliga castes.[32] After 13 extensions to its tenure, Rohini Commission submitted its report to President Droupadi Murmu on 31 July 2023.[33] The report is more than 1,000-pages long and is divided in two parts- the first part deals with how the OBC quota should be allocated; and the second part is an updated list of all 2,633 OBC castes across India.[34][35][36]

[edit]

Creamy layer and Indra Sawhney vs Union of India

[edit]

The term creamy layer was first coined by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1975 in the State of Kerala vs NM Thomas case, wherein he observed that "the danger of 'reservation', it seems to me, is three-fold. Its benefits, by and large, are snatched away by the top creamy layer of the 'backward' caste or class, thus keeping the weakest among the weak always weak and leaving the fortunate layers to consume the whole cake".[37][38] 1992 Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India judgment laid down the limits of the state's powers: it upheld the ceiling of 50 percent quotas, emphasized the concept of "social backwardness", and prescribed 11 indicators to ascertain backwardness. The nine-judge Bench judgement also established the concept of qualitative exclusion, such as the "creamy layer".[39][40][41] The creamy layer is only applicable in the case of Other Backward Castes and not applicable on other groups like SC or ST. The creamy layer criteria were introduced at Rs 100,000 in 1993, and revised to Rs 250,000 in 2004, Rs 450,000 in 2008, and Rs 600,000 in 2013.[42] In October 2015, National Commission for Backward Classes proposed that a person belonging to OBC with an annual family income of up to Rs 1.5 million should be considered as minimum ceiling for OBC.[43] NCBC also recommended sub-division of OBCs into 'backward', 'more backward' and 'extremely backward' blocs and divide 27% quota amongst them in proportion to their population, to ensure that stronger OBCs don't corner the quota benefits.[44][45] In August 2017, NDA government announced the creamy layer ceiling in the OBC category from getting reservation in jobs, has been raised from Rs 6 lakh a year to Rs 8 lakh.[46]

Supreme Court interim stay

[edit]

On 29 March 2007, the Supreme Court of India, as an interim measure, stayed the law providing for 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes in educational institutions like IITs and IIMs. This was done in response to a public interest litigation — Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India. The Court held that the 1931 census could not be a determinative factor for identifying the OBCs to provide reservation. The court also observed, "Reservation cannot be permanent and appear to perpetuate backwardness".[47]

Supreme Court verdict

[edit]

On 10 April 2008, the Supreme Court of India upheld the government's initiative of 27% OBC quotas in government-funded institutions. The Court has categorically reiterated its prior stand that those considered part of the "Creamy layer" should be excluded by government-funded institutions and by private institutions from the scope of the reservation policy. The verdict produced mixed reactions from supporting and opposing quarters.

Several criteria to identify the portion of the population comprising the "creamy layer" have been recommended, including the following:[48]

  • Children of those with family income above ₹ 250,000 a year, and then ₹ 450,000 a year as of October 2008 and now ₹ 800,000 a year, should be considered creamy layer, and excluded from the reservation quota.
  • Children of doctors, engineers, chartered accountants, actors, consultants, media professionals, writers, bureaucrats, defence officers of colonel and equivalent rank or higher, high court and Supreme Court judges, and all central and state government Class A and B officials should be excluded.
  • The Court has requested Parliament to exclude the children of MPs and MLAs as well.

Supreme Court conclusions from Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India

[edit]
  1. The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2006 does not violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution so far as it relates to the state-maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. The question of whether the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2006 would be constitutionally valid or not so far as "private unaided" educational institutions are concerned, is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
  2. The "creamy layer" principle is one of the parameters to identify backward classes. Therefore, principally, the "creamy layer" principle cannot be applied to STs and SCs, as SCs and STs are separate classes by themselves.
  3. Preferably there should be a review after ten years to take note of the change of circumstances.
  4. A graduation (not technical graduation) or professional course deemed to be educationally forward.
  5. Principle of exclusion of creamy layer applicable to OBC's.
  6. The Central Government shall examine the desirability of fixing cut-off marks in respect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to balance reservation with other societal interests and to maintain standards of excellence. This would ensure quality and merit would not suffer. If any seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categories.
  7. So far as the determination of backward classes is concerned, a notification should be issued by the Union of India. This can be done only after the exclusion of the creamy layer for which necessary data must be obtained by the Central Government from the State Governments and Union Territories. Such Notification is open to challenge on the grounds of wrongful exclusion or inclusion. Norms must be fixed keeping in view the peculiar features in different States and Union Territories. There has to be proper identification of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). For identifying backward classes, the Commission set up under the directions of this Court in Indra Sawhney 1 has to work more effectively and not merely decide applications for inclusion or exclusion of castes.
  8. The Parliament should fix a deadline by which time free and compulsory education will have reached every child. This must be done within six months, as the right to free and compulsory education is perhaps the most important of all the fundamental rights (Art.21 A). Without education, it becomes extremely difficult to exercise other fundamental rights.
  9. If material is shown to the Central Government that the Institution deserves to be included in the Schedule (institutes which are excluded from reservations) of The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (No. 5 of 2007), the Central Government must take an appropriate decision based on materials placed and on examining the concerned issues as to whether Institution deserves to be included in the Schedule of the said act as provided in Sec 4 of the said act.
  10. Held that the determination of SEBCs is done not solely based on caste and hence, the identification of SEBCs does not violate Article 15(1) of the Constitution.

Supreme Court scrapped Jat Reservations in Central OBCs list

[edit]

In March 2015, Supreme Court of India scrapped Jat Reservations saying that Jats are not socially and economically backward in reference with National Commission for Backward Classes' (NCBC) opinion.[49][50][51][52] Supreme Court judgement quashed the proposed inclusion of Jats in Central list of OBCs on the basis that Jats are already given OBC status in 9 States.[53] On 21 July 2015, Supreme Court rejected Centre's review plea for its verdict of quashing Jat reservation in OBCs.[54]

Central List of OBCs

[edit]
See also: List of Muslim Other Backward Classes communities in India

Lists of OBCs are maintained by both the National Commission for Backward Classes and the individual states.[55] The central list does not always reflect the state lists, which can differ significantly.[citation needed] A community identified as a nationally recognized OBC in the NCBC central list may be so recognized only in specific states or only in limited areas within specific states. Occasionally, it is not an entire community that is thus classified but rather some parts within it.[8][56] As of 2023, Maharashtra has the highest number of OBC castes listed under Central List of OBCs, followed by Odisha, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.[57]

Distribution of state-wise caste in Central OBC list
State/UT Number of castes in Central OBC list
Maharashtra 261
Odisha 200
Karnataka 199
Tamil Nadu 181
Bihar 136
West Bengal 98
Uttar Pradesh 76
All India 2633

Christians

[edit]

The Karnataka State Government has issued notification granting OBC reservation benefits to Brahmin Christian, Kuruba Christian, Madiga Christian, Akkasali Christian, Sudri Christian, Scheduled Caste converted to Christianity, Setty Balija Christian, Nekara Christian, Paravar Christian and Lambani Christian.[58]

The Kerala government grants OBC reservation benefits to Latin Catholics of Kerala, Anglo Indians and Nadar Christians included in South India United Church (SIUC).[59]

The Government of Maharashtra grants OBC reservation benefits to East Indian Catholics.[60]

Politically important social groups listed as OBC

[edit]

Listed Brahmins and other priestly communities

[edit]

Caste surveys held in Indian states

[edit]
  1. Socio-Economic Survey of Kerala 1968: In 1968, the Communist government under E. M. S. Namboodiripad ordered a socio-economic survey of each resident in the state of Kerala, to assess caste inequalities. Until the census of 2011, this survey was the only caste-based count conducted in post-independence India. The survey was not very conclusive, since it merged several unrelated castes into one group (for example, Ambalavasis and Tamil Brahmins were grouped along with Malayali Brahmins). The survey found that individuals belonging to higher castes possessed more land and had relatively higher per capita income as compared to the general population. The survey found that 33% of the state's population was forward caste, almost half of whom were Syrian Christians. According to the survey, 13% of the Brahmins, 6.8% of the Syro-Malabar Catholics, 5.4% of the Jacobites and 4.7% of the Nairs owned more than 5 acres of land. This compared with 1.4% of the Ezhavas, 1.9% of the Muslims, and 0.1% of the Scheduled Castes who had that much land in their possession.[119]
  2. Telangana's Samagra Kutumba Survey 2014 [published 2022]: The report reveals that Telangana's population of around 36.9 million is distributed among various caste groups. Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) represent approximately 18.48% and 11.74% of the population, respectively. Most of the population belongs to Backward Castes (BCs), making up 51% of the population, although the findings were never made public due to various court cases against it.[120][121] Other castes comprise 16.03%, while religious minorities account for 10.65% of the population.[122]
  3. Karnataka Caste Census 2015[123] [status unknown]: The Social and Educational Survey ordered by then Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in 2014 to inform Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations in Karnataka is yet to be published as of 2023.[124] Initiated by the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes, the survey involved 1.6 lakh government employees canvassing around 1.3 crore households, costing the state Rs 169 crore. However, the report remains unpublished despite eight years passing, multiple government tenures, and repeated calls for its release from various political leaders. Controversy surrounds the issue with successive social welfare ministers, including H Anjaneya and Kota Shrinivas Poojary, blaming delays on incomplete tabulation and non-submission by the state BC Commission headed by MP Jayaprakash Hegde. Some sources suggest political pressure and potential upheaval in the state's power dynamics, particularly concerning the traditionally dominant Lingayat and Vokkaliga communities, as reasons for the report's non-disclosure.[125] In June 2023, Siddaramaiah-led Congress government in Karnataka has decided to accept the 2015 socio-economic caste survey report, potentially stirring controversy as it reveals that the population of Vokkaligas and Lingayats is lower than commonly believed, with Dalits being the largest demographic group.[126]
  4. Uttarakhand OBC Survey [ongoing]: The ongoing Other Backward Classes (OBC) survey in Uttarakhand has experienced significant delays and issues with accuracy, leading to intervention by the single-member dedicated commission. Various districts have reported non-compliance with survey guidelines, including instances of reliance on outdated data rather than conducting new door-to-door surveys, as seen in Khatima. In response, the commission has cancelled the flawed survey, ordering a redo within 15 days, and transferred the officer in charge. Similar corrective measures have been taken in Champawat and Dharchula. Despite these efforts, the commission has yet to receive any completed data, not even from Dehradun, and the survey's conclusion has been extended to June 2023.[127]
  5. Bihar caste-based survey 2022:[128]2022 Bihar caste-based survey first report was released on 2 October 2023. The report showed that extremely backward classes (EBCs) account for 36.01 percent of the 13.07 crore population of the state.[129][130] OBCs, EBCs together account for 63% of the total population of Bihar.[131][132] On 9 November 2023, Bihar Assembly Passed Bill For 65% Caste Quota excluding 10% EWS Quota,[133] in government jobs and educational institutions.[134][135][136] The new reservation quota percentages include 20% for Scheduled Castes, 2% for Scheduled Tribes, 18% for Backward Classes, 25% for Extremely Backward Classes, and 10% for the economically weaker section among the Upper Castes.
  6. Odisha Backward Classes Survey 2023[137] [ongoing]: On May 1, 2023, the Odisha government initiated a comprehensive survey targeting state notified 211 Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC), which is expected to conclude by June 29, 2023. Administered across all 314 blocks and 114 urban local bodies of Odisha, the survey is being conducted by the Odisha State Commission for Backward Classes (OSCBC) using both online and offline methods. The survey aims to evaluate social and educational conditions of backwardness, factoring in various indicators such as occupation and educational qualifications. Initially, centers for data submission were established in Anganwadi Kendras and various PDS outlets, but later in the special survey drive the door-to-door data collection method was also adopted. The compiled data is expected to be published after five months of survey completion.[138] It's noteworthy that the survey is being conducted under the OSCBC Act, 1993 and the OSCBC (Amendment) Act, 2020, allowing family heads or senior individuals to provide family data, including ration card, Aadhar card, or voter identity details.[139]
  7. UP Backward Classes Commission OBC quota report for ULB[140][141][ongoing]: The final report determining quotas for backward classes in urban local body polls is expected to be available by June 2023. The Backward Classes Commission, established on December 28, plans to submit a preliminary report within three months. The commission aims to collect empirical data on backward classes, following Supreme Court and high court guidelines for OBC reservation in civic body elections. The commission's work involves data collection from district officials, studying processes in other states, and addressing objections from political parties.[142]
  8. Haryana Backward Classes Commission Chairman Report[143]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Other Backward Class

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Other Backward Classes (OBCs) are castes and communities in India classified as socially and educationally backward, distinct from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and designated by the central government for affirmative action to address underrepresentation in public services and education. The category originates from constitutional provisions under Article 340, empowering the state to identify such groups based on criteria including social, educational, and economic indicators like low caste status, limited access to higher education, and underemployment in government positions. The Mandal Commission, appointed in 1979, formalized the modern framework by surveying 11 indicators across social, educational, and economic domains to list 3,743 castes and estimate OBCs at 52% of India's population, recommending 27% reservations in jobs and admissions to counter entrenched disadvantages. These quotas, upheld by the in 1992 with a 50% overall cap and exclusion of the "" (economically advanced subsets), now apply at 27% alongside 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes in direct recruitment by open competition. While intended to foster equity, the policy has faced contention over its caste-based perpetuation amid static national census data on OBC demographics since 1931, reliance on dated estimates, and variable state-level surveys indicating populations up to 63% in regions like , prompting calls for sub-categorization to prioritize the most disadvantaged.

Definition and Historical Context

The Indian Constitution employs the term "backward classes" without providing an exhaustive statutory definition, instead focusing on "socially and ally backward classes" as the basis for provisions. Article 15(4), added via the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, authorizes the state to implement special measures for the advancement of these classes, particularly to address disparities in access to and public opportunities. Article 16(4) similarly permits reservations in government appointments for backward classes that are inadequately represented in public services, emphasizing representation over mere numerical quotas. These clauses distinguish backward classes from , positioning Other Backward Classes (OBCs) as the residual category of non-SC/ST groups exhibiting social and educational backwardness. Article 340 empowers the President to constitute a commission tasked with examining the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes, assessing their difficulties, and recommending Union or state-level interventions to promote their educational, economic, and social interests. Enacted on January 26, 1950, this provision established a procedural framework for identification rather than a fixed definitional criterion, requiring empirical investigation into factors such as caste-based , occupational patterns, and rates. The commission's recommendations must be reviewed by a parliamentary standing committee, underscoring legislative oversight in defining and addressing backwardness. Legally, OBC status has been operationalized through executive commissions and judicial interpretation, with the in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) ruling that backwardness must be ascertained primarily through social indicators—like hereditary occupations and stigmatization—corroborated by quantifiable educational and economic data, rather than alone. The nine-judge bench rejected purely economic criteria as insufficient, mandating that 52% of the population qualifying as OBCs (per the ) necessitated rigorous, data-driven validation to avoid over-inclusion, while introducing the "" exclusion for affluent subsets within OBCs to target genuine disadvantage. This judgment, binding under Article 141, affirmed 27% reservation for OBCs in central services but capped total reservations at 50%, influencing subsequent legal tests for inclusion. The , formalized a dedicated body to investigate complaints regarding OBC lists and advise on inclusions or exclusions, defining its mandate to cover classes other than and STs that face social and educational hurdles. Repealed and elevated to constitutional status via Article 338B under the (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, the NCBC examines representations using criteria like relative backwardness in state-specific contexts, though it lacks enforcement powers and relies on government notification of lists under the Mandal framework. precedents, such as Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), have reinforced that OBC identification demands contemporary socio-economic surveys, critiquing outdated caste-only lists for lacking causal linkage to persistent .

Pre-Independence Origins of Backward Class Concepts

The concept of backward classes in pre-independence emerged from colonial administrative efforts to address educational and representational disparities among castes, initially framed through the lens of social hierarchy rather than a unified policy. The Hunter Education Commission of 1882, appointed by Viceroy Lord Ripon, first highlighted the need for targeted educational provisions for "backward classes," recommending fee exemptions, scholarships, and expanded primary schooling in districts inhabited by aboriginal and lower-caste groups to counter their underrepresentation in formal . This reflected empirical observations from early censuses, starting with the 1871 decennial census under British rule, which systematically enumerated castes and revealed stark literacy gaps— for instance, upper castes like Brahmins dominated government service and , while and allied groups lagged due to historical exclusion from Vedic learning and land ownership privileges. The term "backward classes" itself drew from 19th-century British class distinctions, adapted by administrators to denote non-upper-caste Hindus facing systemic disadvantages, though it lacked a standardized all-India definition until later. Social reform movements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries amplified demands for recognizing backwardness among intermediate castes, distinct from the more stigmatized "depressed classes" (precursors to Scheduled Castes). In 1902, Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj of implemented the earliest known reservations, allocating 50% of educational seats and public jobs to non- and backward classes to rectify overrepresentation—evidenced by data showing , despite comprising a small fraction, holding disproportionate administrative posts. Similarly, the Justice Party, founded in 1916 in as the South Indian Liberal Federation, mobilized non- castes against perceived upper-caste dominance, advocating quotas in services and based on census-derived shares; its 1920s governance introduced communal reservations favoring backward groups like Vellalas and Mudaliars. These initiatives stemmed from causal factors like colonial enumeration rigidifying fluid jati identities into fixed hierarchies, prompting empirical claims of underrepresentation—e.g., non- formed over 90% of the yet held minimal bureaucratic roles. Princely states like provided concrete policy precedents, with a 1918 committee investigating backward communities' access to , leading to a government order reserving up to 50% of positions for them, defined as all non-Brahmin groups with inadequate representation per data. The Miller Committee report underpinning this policy quantified backwardness through metrics like literacy rates and service occupancy, recommending gradual implementation to 70% reservation over time, excluding only advanced castes. Such measures, while localized, established the backward class framework—rooted in verifiable socio-economic indicators rather than mere affirmative gestures—as a counter to upper-caste monopolies, influencing later national discourse without encompassing the full spectrum of untouchables or tribals. These origins underscored causal realism: backwardness arose from entrenched caste-based exclusion, exacerbated by colonial policies that quantified rather than eradicated disparities.

Post-Independence Evolution Through Commissions

The First Backward Classes Commission, chaired by , was appointed by presidential order on January 29, 1953, to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes in and recommend measures for their advancement. The commission's report, submitted on March 30, 1955, identified 2,399 castes and communities as backward across various states, primarily relying on criteria such as -based social backwardness, educational attainment, and economic status, while emphasizing that served as a key indicator of backwardness in Hindu society. It proposed including reservations in services and proportional to population shares, potentially up to 70% in some interpretations of its suggestions, but lacked precise quota formulas and highlighted internal hierarchies within backward groups. The Kalelkar Commission's recommendations were not implemented by the central government, as the report was deemed flawed due to subjective selection of backward castes without objective socioeconomic surveys and concerns that caste-based classifications would entrench divisions rather than promote merit-based upliftment. In a 1955 parliamentary discussion, the government under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru rejected wholesale adoption, arguing for economic criteria over rigid caste lists to avoid perpetuating hereditary disadvantage, though some states pursued partial measures independently. This non-acceptance fueled ongoing demands from backward class organizations, leading to parliamentary resolutions in the 1960s and 1970s urging a fresh inquiry, amid rising political mobilization by non-upper-caste groups. Responding to these pressures, the Second Backward Classes Commission, known as the , was established on December 1, 1979, under the government, with as chairman, tasked with identifying socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and recommending quotas beyond existing Scheduled Caste and Tribe reservations. The commission's 1980 report, submitted on December 31, estimated OBCs (overlapping with SEBCs) at 52% of India's population based on 1931 census data extrapolated with field surveys, using 11 weighted criteria—six social, three educational, and two economic—to classify 3,743 castes as backward, asserting as the primary determinant of persistent disadvantage due to historical exclusion. It recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in jobs, educational institutions, and promotions, aiming to cap total reservations at 50% while excluding advanced sections within OBCs, and proposed additional measures like specialized institutions and economic aid. The Mandal recommendations languished until 1990, when Prime Minister announced their implementation for central services, sparking nationwide protests over perceived reverse discrimination and threats to efficiency, with the in the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment upholding the 27% quota but mandating exclusion of the "" (affluent OBC subsets) and barring reservations in promotions. This judicial intervention refined the commission's framework, emphasizing empirical validation of backwardness over rote lists. To oversee OBC interests post-Mandal, the was established on August 14, 1993, via the NCBC Act, empowered to examine complaints, investigate inclusion/exclusion from lists, and advise the government, evolving into a constitutional body under Article 338B in 2018. These commissions collectively shifted policy from tentative identification to structured , though debates persist on their reliance on proxies amid socioeconomic mobility data showing uneven benefits.

Identification and Classification

Criteria for Inclusion in OBC Lists

The criteria for inclusion in Other Backward Classes (OBC) lists emphasize demonstrable social and educational backwardness at the group level, as mandated by Article 340 of the Indian Constitution, which authorizes commissions to investigate the conditions of such classes and recommend measures for their advancement. Economic indicators supplement these but do not constitute the primary basis, distinguishing OBC identification from purely income-based schemes; the focus remains on historical caste-based disadvantages manifesting in low and , rather than transient . The (NCBC), functioning as the advisory body since its constitutional status in 2018, evaluates state-proposed inclusions against these parameters, requiring such as census data, literacy rates, and occupational profiles to verify backwardness and inadequate representation in public employment. The foundational framework was established by the (1979–1980), which devised 11 quantitative indicators to operationalize backwardness, assigning scores to ensure objectivity: 3 points each for the three social criteria, 2 points each for the four educational criteria, and 1 point each for the four economic criteria, with communities scoring at least 11 out of 22 deemed backward. These were: Social criteria (assessing stigma and traditional disadvantage):
  • Castes/communities regarded as socially backward by neighboring groups.
  • Communities predominantly reliant on manual or unskilled labor.
  • Communities exhibiting significantly lower average female age compared to the state average.
Educational criteria (measuring access and persistence barriers):
  • Pupil drop-out rate in the 5–15 age group at least 25% above the state average.
  • Proportion of students completing at least 25% below the state average.
  • rate at least 25% below the state average.
  • Rate of overage children (post-primary age) in schools at least 25% above the state average.
Economic criteria (indicating deprivation as a proxy):
  • family asset value at least 25% below the state .
  • Proportion of households in () dwellings at least 25% above the state .
  • Share of agricultural landholdings below the state threshold for small/marginal farmers.
  • levels where at least 25% fall below twice the poverty line.
This scoring system identified 3,743 castes/communities as OBCs, estimating their population at 52% based on 1931 Census extrapolations adjusted for post-Partition demographics. Subsequent processes, overseen by the NCBC, refine these through state-specific data verification, incorporating surveys on social discrimination (e.g., enforcement, ) and educational metrics (e.g., literacy gaps exceeding 10–15% from state norms). Inclusions require affirmative evidence of ongoing backwardness, excluding advanced subgroups via norms (currently ₹8 annual family income threshold, revised periodically). The has mandated "quantifiable data" for substantiating claims, rejecting inclusions based solely on political assertions or , as seen in rulings quashing arbitrary state additions without backwardness proof (e.g., 2024 case). States maintain parallel lists for local reservations, but central list amendments follow NCBC recommendations to the government, ensuring uniformity for Union purposes while allowing regional variations in evidence thresholds.

Central and State-Level Listing Processes

The central list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is specified by the under Article 342A(1) of the , in consultation with state governors, identifying socially and educationally backward castes or communities relevant to each state or for purposes of reservations in jobs, educational institutions, and schemes. The (NCBC), established as a constitutional body under Article 338B following the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act of , examines proposals for inclusion or exclusion from this list. Proposals typically originate from state governments, communities, or individuals, requiring ethnographic reports, socio-economic data demonstrating backwardness (such as low literacy rates, underrepresentation in public services, and inadequate asset ownership), and evidence of or occupational disadvantage, excluding purely economic criteria as primary qualifiers. The NCBC conducts hearings, verifies data through field inquiries or commissions, and advises the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; final inclusion or exclusion is notified via presidential order, often after parliamentary scrutiny for contentious cases, with 365 proposals reviewed between 2014 and 2024 yielding selective additions based on empirical validation. This process ensures the list remains dynamic, with periodic revisions to reflect demographic realities while preventing over-inclusion of advanced sections. State-level OBC lists, maintained separately for reservations in state public services, educational admissions, and local schemes, are notified by respective state governments and operate independently of the central list to address region-specific backwardness. Each state typically constitutes a Backward Classes Commission or equivalent body—such as Delhi's Commission for Other Backward Classes—to process requests for inclusion or exclusion, applying criteria akin to the central process: quantifiable indicators of social, educational, and economic disadvantage, supported by caste censuses, surveys, or administrative data, though states retain flexibility in thresholds and may prioritize local ethnographic evidence over uniform national standards. For instance, states like Bihar and Tamil Nadu have conducted their own surveys to justify expansions, notifying lists via government gazettes after public consultations and commission recommendations, which can differ markedly from the central list—a caste recognized as OBC in one state may not qualify centrally if evidence of backwardness is state-bound. This decentralized approach has led to over 2,600 castes across state lists as of 2023, but faces challenges like inconsistent data quality and political pressures, prompting Supreme Court oversight to enforce creamy layer exclusions and prevent arbitrary inclusions exceeding the 50% reservation ceiling without justification. Discrepancies between central and state lists arise because central listings prioritize nationwide applicability and rigorous NCBC vetting to avoid dilution of quotas, whereas state processes allow for broader inclusions tailored to intra-state disparities, though post-2018 amendments limit states' unilateral power to redefine OBC status for central benefits, mandating alignment with the presidential list. Both levels emphasize empirical evidence over self-identification, with exclusions for "creamy layer" families (annual income above ₹8 lakh as of 2017, excluding salary) verified through income certificates, ensuring benefits target genuinely disadvantaged subgroups.

Sub-Categorization Within OBCs

Sub-categorization within Other Backward Classes (OBCs) involves dividing the OBC category into subgroups, such as more backward, backward, and extremely backward classes, to ensure a more equitable distribution of reservation benefits, as dominant castes often capture the majority of quotas. This approach addresses empirical disparities where a small number of OBC castes, such as Yadavs and Kurmis in northern states, have disproportionately benefited from the 27% reservation in central government jobs and education, leaving smaller or more marginalized OBC groups underserved. The rationale stems from data indicating that approximately 25% of OBC castes account for nearly 85% of benefits availed under the central OBC list, prompting calls for sub-quotas based on relative backwardness. The , in the Sawhney judgment of 1992, upheld the permissibility of sub-classifying backward classes into "backward" and "more backward" categories under Article 16(4) of the , provided such classification is supported by quantifiable data on social and educational backwardness rather than arbitrary criteria. This ruling distinguished OBC sub-categorization from uniform treatment required for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, allowing states flexibility to tailor quotas within the OBC reservation to reflect internal hierarchies of disadvantage. Subsequent judicial interpretations have reinforced that sub-categorization must rely on empirical evidence, such as caste-wise enumeration of benefits availed, to prevent within the category. At the state level, sub-categorization has been implemented in at least 11 states, including Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal, often through separate sub-quotas within the overall OBC reservation percentage. For instance, Bihar subcategorized OBCs into Backward Classes (14%) and Extremely Backward Classes (18%) in 1991, later adjusted following court scrutiny, to prioritize more disadvantaged groups like the Nishad and Mallah communities over land-owning castes. Karnataka similarly divides its OBC list into Category I (most backward, 4%), Category II A and B (15%), and Category III A and B (4%), with allocations based on state commission surveys assessing occupational and economic indicators. These state initiatives typically involve periodic commissions collecting data on intra-OBC benefit distribution, though challenges persist due to incomplete caste censuses and litigation over data validity. Centrally, the government constituted the Rohini Commission in October 2017 to examine OBC sub-categorization for the central list, which encompasses over 2,600 but shows skewed benefit access. The commission's July 2023 report recommended dividing OBCs into three tiers—Extremely Backward Classes, More Backward Classes, and Backward Classes—with proposed sub-quotas of 12%, 9%, and 6% within the 27% reservation, informed by analysis of 183 lakh OBC appointments between 2004 and 2017 revealing that only 11% of notified received 85% of benefits. However, implementation remains pending as of 2025, with the advocating data-driven surveys, while critics argue that without a comprehensive census, sub-categorization risks perpetuating inaccuracies in identifying the "most backward" subgroups. This delay contrasts with state-level progress, highlighting federal tensions in standardizing OBC equity measures.

Socio-Economic Characteristics

Empirical Data from Surveys and Censuses

The Indian Census does not enumerate Other Backward Classes (OBCs) separately, with caste data collection limited to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) since 1951; the Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) of 2011 gathered OBC identifiers but released only partial socio-economic data, withholding full caste-wise population figures. Surveys provide estimates: the Pew Research Center's 2019-2020 survey found 35% of Indians self-identifying as OBC, lower than the Mandal Commission's 1980 estimate of 52% but consistent with National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) and earlier figures around 32-41%. NFHS-5 (2019-21) reports adult rates for OBCs at 71.8% among women aged 15-49 and 85.6% among men, intermediate between (65.8% women, 80.6% men) and STs (58.3% women, 75.2% men) but below the "Other" category (81.2% women, 88.4% men). years of schooling for OBCs stand at 7.0 for females and 8.5 for males, with 26.5% of women and 33.2% of men aged 15-49 completing 12 or more years. Among ever-married OBC women aged 18-49, 28.7% have no schooling, compared to higher rates among and STs.
Indicator (Aged 15-49)OBC Women (%)OBC Men (%)SC Women (%)ST Women (%)Other Women (%)
Literacy Rate71.885.665.858.381.2
12+ Years Schooling26.533.2---
OBC households show a more even distribution across NFHS-5 wealth quintiles (16.3% lowest to 19.2% highest) than SC (25.5% lowest) or ST (46.3% lowest) households, though below "Other" (28.1% highest); access to improved facilities reaches 82.3% for OBCs, versus 76.9% for and 68.5% for STs. NSSO's 68th round (2011-12) indicated OBC household monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) below "Others" but above and STs in rural and urban areas, reflecting partial socio-economic advancement amid internal variations.

Internal Disparities and Creamy Layer Dynamics

Within Other Backward Classes (OBCs), significant internal disparities exist across sub-castes, with some groups exhibiting greater socio-economic advancement than others, leading to uneven access to reservation benefits. The Justice G. Rohini Commission, appointed in 2017 to examine sub-categorization of OBCs, analyzed data from 1980 to 2010 and found that approximately 97% of reserved jobs and educational seats allocated to OBCs were availed by just 25% of OBC sub-castes, while 37% of OBC communities (983 out of about 2,600) received no benefits whatsoever. This imbalance stems from historical and structural factors, such as varying degrees of land ownership, urbanization, and political mobilization among OBC subgroups, as initially highlighted in the report of 1980, which identified 3,743 castes but noted heterogeneous backwardness levels. The creamy layer concept addresses economic disparities within individual OBC castes by excluding affluent members from reservation quotas, ensuring benefits target the truly disadvantaged. Mandated by the in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), it defines the creamy layer as OBC individuals whose parents' gross annual income exceeds Rs 8 (revised in 2017 from Rs 6 ), or those holding certain high-ranking government positions (e.g., Class I officers), irrespective of income. The exclusion criteria, periodically updated since the initial Rs 1 threshold in 1993, aim to prevent intergenerational perpetuation of advantages and promote equity, with the (NCBC) handling verification and receiving numerous complaints on eligibility. Dynamics of the reveal ongoing tensions between efficacy and obsolescence, as the fixed limit fails to account for inflation and regional cost variations, prompting calls for revision to 12 or higher. While on exclusion rates is sparse due to limited caste-specific surveys, the mechanism has facilitated some redistribution by barring advanced sections, though persistent dominant-caste capture—exacerbated by weak and self-certification—undermines full , as evidenced by unfilled OBC seats in central institutions (40-50% in some cases). Recent government proposals, including equivalence criteria linking exclusion to parental post levels rather than solely , seek to refine dynamics amid demands for OBC sub-categorization to better align quotas with intra-group realities.

Comparative Status Relative to Other Groups

Other Backward Classes (OBCs) generally occupy an intermediate socio-economic position relative to , Scheduled Tribes (STs), and the General Category in , with empirical indicators showing better outcomes than SCs and STs but persistent gaps compared to upper castes. According to the Household Consumption Expenditure Survey 2023-24, average monthly per capita consumption expenditure for OBC households stood at ₹3,848 in rural areas, exceeding SCs at ₹3,474 and STs at ₹3,016, while in urban areas it was ₹6,177 for OBCs versus ₹5,307 for SCs and ₹5,414 for STs; General Category households typically record higher figures, reflecting OBCs' relative economic advantage over SCs and STs but disadvantage vis-à-vis forwards. This pattern aligns with broader income disparities, where upper caste (General) households earn 45-48% above the national average, while SC and OBC households fall below it by comparable margins. In labor market outcomes, OBCs demonstrate stronger integration than and STs. Data from the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2021-22 indicate OBCs comprise 45% of the total workforce, compared to 20% for and lower shares for STs, with OBCs showing higher regular wage participation relative to the casual labor dominance among (higher share in casual work). Unemployment rates further highlight this: OBC urban unemployment declined to 3.1% in 2023-24, lower than rates for and STs, which remain elevated due to structural barriers like lower skill levels and geographic isolation for STs. Labour force participation rates (LFPR) for OBCs also exceed those of and STs in aggregate PLFS metrics, though all reserved groups trail General Category males in formal sector access. Educational attainment reinforces the intermediate status of OBCs. 2019-21 data reveal wide literacy and schooling disparities, with and STs recording the lowest levels among social groups—female literacy gaps persist most acutely for STs—while OBCs fare better but lag General Category in higher secondary completion and enrollment in courses. Multidimensional indices similarly position five of every six poor households in SC, ST, or OBC categories, but within this, STs face the highest deprivation (e.g., 50.6% rate), followed by (33.3%) and OBCs (27.2%), with General Category rates substantially lower. Asset ownership and outcomes follow suit, with OBCs holding more and better access to than SCs and STs, yet trailing General in urban infrastructure and nutritional metrics per NFHS-5. These comparisons underscore causal factors like historical occupational diversification among OBCs (e.g., and agrarian roles versus SC and ST isolation), though exclusions within OBCs narrow gaps with General elites, while non-creamy OBCs align closer to SC/ST vulnerabilities. Government surveys like NSSO and PLFS provide the primary empirical basis, though undercounting of intra-group heterogeneity may overstate uniformity.

Reservation Policies and Implementation

Quota Structures in Education and Employment

In employment, Other Backward Classes receive a 27% quota for direct recruitment across , B, C, and D posts, excluding promotions, as established by the Mandal Commission's 1980 recommendations and affirmed in the Supreme Court's 1992 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India judgment. This applies to public sector undertakings and civil services, with eligibility restricted to the non-creamy layer—defined by income and occupational criteria updated periodically, such as the 2024 revision excluding families with annual income above ₹8 from certain benefits. The quota operates on a roster system to ensure proportional allocation in vacancies, though actual representation stood at approximately 21.57% as of January 2016, rising to nearly 22% by 2022–2023, indicating persistent underutilization relative to the mandated share.
CategoryReservation Percentage
Scheduled Castes (SC)15%
Scheduled Tribes (ST)7.5%
Other Backward Classes (OBC)27%
The above table outlines central-level quotas, totaling 49.5% alongside SC and ST provisions, adhering to the 50% ceiling imposed by Indra Sawhney to prevent excessive dilution of , though the 2019 addition of 10% for Economically Weaker Sections has effectively exceeded this in practice without altering OBC structures. In higher education, the 27% OBC quota extends to admissions in central universities, Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), National Institutes of Technology (NITs), and All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), implemented via common entrance exams like JEE and NEET with category-wise cutoffs. For instance, during 2015–2016, 22 of 40 central universities met or approached the target OBC student intake, though faculty positions show significant shortfalls, with OBC professor vacancies exceeding 80% in some institutions as of 2025. States maintain parallel systems using their OBC lists, often with higher quotas—such as Tamil Nadu's 69% total reservation including OBCs—but central quotas apply uniformly to Union-funded institutions. Verification relies on caste certificates issued by competent authorities, with periodic audits to enforce creamy layer exclusions and prevent misuse.

Exclusion Mechanisms and Eligibility Verification

The primary exclusion mechanism for Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations in is the criterion, designed to prevent socially and economically advanced individuals within OBC categories from accessing quota benefits, thereby directing toward genuinely backward sections. Established following recommendations to exclude affluent subsets, this mechanism applies criteria based on parental occupation, status, and to identify exclusions. Children of parents holding high-ranking government positions—such as Class I officers or equivalent in public sector undertakings—are automatically excluded, irrespective of , to target intergenerational privilege. Income thresholds further delineate the creamy layer, with families whose parents' gross annual exceeds ₹8 from sources other than and deemed ineligible for OBC non-creamy layer (NCL) status. This limit, set by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in a office memorandum, excludes and agricultural earnings to focus on non-employment-derived accumulation, though critics argue this underestimates total economic capacity in agrarian OBC communities. The threshold has been revised upward periodically— from ₹1 in 1993, to ₹4.5 in 2008, and ₹6 in 2013—reflecting adjustments but sparking debates on whether it adequately captures creeping advancement. Exclusion applies if the criterion is met in the preceding financial year, with certificates requiring self-declaration subject to post-issuance verification. Eligibility verification begins with issuance of an OBC-NCL certificate by designated authorities, such as the or , who assess membership against central or state notified lists and verify non-creamy layer status via proofs like returns or affidavits for the prior three years. Applicants must provide of OBC lineage, including paternal ancestry records, and a declaration excluding and agricultural components. In and admissions, appointing authorities or scrutiny committees, often headed by a , conduct mandatory checks, including cross-verification with issuing offices or field inquiries for suspected discrepancies. State variations exist, with some mandating digital portals for application and real-time income linkage via or bank records, though enforcement relies on self-reported data prone to under-declaration. Non-compliance, such as false claims, invites penalties under the for forgery, with documented cases leading to de-reservation of posts. The (NCBC) oversees complaints and recommends periodic audits, emphasizing empirical income data over presumptive backwardness to maintain integrity.

Political and Administrative Challenges in Application

Discrepancies between the central OBC list maintained by the (NCBC) and state-specific lists have created significant administrative hurdles in quota application, as a recognized as OBC in one state may not qualify under central criteria, leading to inconsistencies in eligibility for jobs and across jurisdictions. This lack of uniformity complicates verification processes for central government positions and institutions, often resulting in legal disputes and delayed appointments. Verification of OBC status remains fraught with challenges, including widespread issuance of fraudulent certificates that undermine the quota system's integrity. Between 2014 and 2023, the received 1,084 complaints regarding fake caste certificates used for securing reserved jobs, leading to the dismissal of 92 individuals. High-profile cases, such as the 2024 (UPSC) controversy involving trainee IAS officer Puja Khedkar, who allegedly submitted falsified documents to claim OBC benefits, highlight systemic vulnerabilities in certificate issuance and scrutiny. The absence of robust online verification mechanisms exacerbates these issues, with parliamentary panels recommending digital platforms to curb , though implementation lags due to infrastructural gaps. Application of the exclusion criterion—intended to bar economically advanced OBC individuals from quotas—faces administrative inconsistencies, as the income threshold and equivalence norms vary, preventing uniform enforcement across states and central entities. The NCBC has flagged anomalies in state-level implementation, such as in , where revised OBC lists post-2010 were criticized for procedural lapses and inadequate data backing, prompting field investigations and policy red flags. Politically, OBC reservations have fueled mobilization along lines, with parties leveraging quota expansions for electoral gains, often intensifying inter-caste rivalries and resistance from non-reserved groups over perceived erosion of merit-based opportunities. This has led to contentious debates, including demands to breach the 50% reservation ceiling upheld by the , as seen in states like , where excess quotas spark fairness concerns without empirical resolution. Administrative resistance to policy updates, coupled with bureaucratic inertia in training and system overhauls, further hampers effective rollout, as evidenced by persistent grievances handled by the NCBC. Such dynamics contribute to delays, with examples like reduced undergraduate applications in due to quota-related court uncertainties.

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments

In M.R. Balaji v. State of (1963), the invalidated a government order reserving 68% of seats in professional and technical colleges for socially and educationally backward classes, , deeming it excessive and violative of Article 15(4) of the , which permits special provisions for advancement of backward classes but not at the cost of equality. The Court held that reservations must be reasonable, not exceed 50% of seats to preserve merit-based opportunities, and emphasized that backwardness should be determined primarily by but also consider other factors like occupation and , rejecting a rigid 68% quota as arbitrary. This judgment laid the groundwork for the 50% ceiling on reservations, influencing subsequent policies by interpreting "backward classes" to include but not solely define OBCs through enumeration. The Indra Sawhney v. Union of India case (1992), commonly known as the Mandal Commission judgment, upheld the implementation of 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs under Article 16(4), validating caste as a primary indicator of social and educational backwardness while affirming the 50% overall cap on reservations from Balaji. A nine-judge bench ruled that OBC reservations exclude the "creamy layer"—affluent members within backward classes whose exclusion prevents perpetuation of benefits to already advanced subgroups—and prohibited reservations in promotions for public employment, arguing they infringe on efficiency under Article 335. The decision rejected economic criteria alone for backwardness, prioritizing empirical data on caste-based disadvantages, but mandated periodic review of OBC lists to ensure continued relevance. In Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008), the , by a 5:2 majority, upheld the 93rd Constitutional Amendment (2005) introducing 27% OBC quota in central higher institutions like IITs and IIMs, extending Indra Sawhney's principles to while excluding the to target only genuinely disadvantaged OBC candidates. The bench invalidated the inclusion of in quotas, directing exclusion based on parental income thresholds (initially ₹4.5 lakh annually), and upheld the policy's exclusion from minority institutions under Article 30, but struck down aspects allowing sub-quotas without quantifiable data on backwardness. This ruling reinforced that reservations must be backed by contemporary surveys of backwardness, not outdated lists, and affirmed the 50% cap's flexibility only in exceptional cases supported by evidence.

Recent Court Rulings on Quotas and Sub-Classification

In August 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in a 6:1 majority verdict, upheld the states' power to sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for reservations, overruling the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh judgment that had deemed such sub-classification impermissible as it treated SCs/STs as homogeneous groups. The ruling explicitly referenced the 1992 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India precedent, which had already permitted sub-classification within Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to prioritize the most backward segments, clarifying that the principle was not confined to OBCs and could extend to SCs/STs based on empirical data demonstrating intra-group disparities. This decision reinforced the existing framework for OBC sub-quotas in states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where sub-classifications allocate varying percentages within the 27% central OBC quota to address uneven benefit distribution, without introducing new restrictions on OBC practices. On quotas, the has consistently enforced the 50% ceiling on total reservations established in Indra Sawhney, rejecting state attempts to exceed it for OBCs absent exceptional circumstances. In October 2025, the Court dismissed Telangana's special leave petition challenging a stay on a 42% OBC quota in local body elections, observing that the enhancement would push total reservations beyond 60%, violating the ceiling and lacking quantifiable data justifying deviation. Similarly, in October 2025, defended before the its 2023 law increasing OBC quota from 14% to 27% in public services and education—breaching the 50% cap—arguing for flexibility based on OBCs comprising over 50% of the population, though the Court has yet to rule, with interim stays halting implementations since 2022. Regarding the creamy layer exclusion within OBC quotas, which bars affluent members (defined by income thresholds, currently ₹8 annually, excluding salary) from availing benefits to target the truly backward, recent judicial scrutiny has focused on uniformity. In August 2025, the Centre proposed "equivalence" criteria to standardize application across OBC sub-categories and states, addressing anomalies like varying state income limits and inclusion of posts, amid petitions highlighting inconsistent exclusions that dilute quota efficacy. The , in related proceedings, issued notice in August 2025 on extending a -like mechanism to SC/ST quotas, drawing parallels to the OBC model but deferring implementation to legislatures without mandating it for OBCs. These rulings underscore judicial emphasis on data-driven exclusions to prevent perpetuation of benefits to advanced sections, aligning with equality under Article 14 while upholding OBC-specific frameworks.

Interstate Disputes and High Court Challenges

The Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in India is delineated through state-specific lists, leading to interstate disputes when individuals migrate and seek reservation benefits based on their status in their state of origin rather than the destination state. High courts have consistently ruled that OBC status is not portable across state boundaries, requiring claimants to demonstrate backwardness under the receiving state's criteria for eligibility in employment, education, or other quotas. For instance, on July 15, 2024, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that migrants cannot transfer their caste status for reservation benefits, even if the caste is recognized as OBC in the original state, emphasizing that benefits are tied to the state's own notified lists and surveys of social and educational backwardness. This principle aligns with earlier judicial precedents affirming that reservation policies operate within state domiciles, preventing a uniform national application that could dilute state-specific empirical assessments. High Court challenges frequently target the procedural validity of state OBC inclusions, particularly when notifications lack robust on backwardness or appear influenced by political considerations. In , the on May 22, , quashed the OBC status granted to 77 castes via state orders from 2010 to 2012, ruling that inclusions were arbitrary, lacked quantifiable evidence of social and educational backwardness, and violated constitutional mandates under Articles 15 and 16 by incorporating religion-based criteria for several Muslim sub-groups without secular justification. The court criticized the state's commissions for failing to conduct fresh surveys and relying on outdated or inadequate , a recurring issue in such petitions where activists and rival communities allege quota dilution for non-backward groups. Similar challenges have arisen in other states; for example, in , the in 2024 capped OBC reservations in local body elections at levels supported by empirical , rejecting the state's push for a 42% quota as exceeding the 50% ceiling without proportional justification from caste censuses or socioeconomic indicators. These disputes underscore tensions between state autonomy in identifying backward classes and judicial oversight to ensure reservations remain tied to verifiable criteria rather than electoral appeasement. High Courts often direct states to redo inclusions with comprehensive, data-driven processes, such as triple tests for local body quotas (quantifying backwardness, inadequate representation, and overall reservation limits), as mandated in evolving . While some state governments appeal such rulings to the — as in West Bengal's July 2025 partial relief on a revised list—the High Courts' interventions have invalidated hundreds of inclusions nationwide since the , prompting calls for standardized national surveys to resolve inconsistencies.

Criticisms, Effectiveness, and Reforms

Evidence on Socio-Economic Outcomes

Empirical data indicate that Other Backward Class (OBC) groups have experienced improvements in following the implementation of reservation policies. Analysis of National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) data from 2004–05 and Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) data from 2017–18 shows that levels among urban OBC men aged 25–35 have risen to levels comparable to the general category, with sharp gains beyond primary schooling attributable to . Post-1994 OBC reservations correlated with an additional 0.52 years of schooling on average, with effects persisting even after excluding the . In , quotas have modestly enhanced access to middle-class positions, increasing the probability by 3.6 points for eligible OBC cohorts, alongside gains in professional networks (1–5 points higher likelihood of knowing officials). OBC representation in sectors like and IT services reached approximately 35% by 2017–18, approaching their population share, while formal overall rose 10% across groups including OBC. However, disparities persist, with general category earnings exceeding OBC levels at all education thresholds, widening at tertiary levels. Unemployment rates for OBC have trended downward in recent years, as shown in PLFS data:
YearOBC UR (%)SC UR (%)ST UR (%)Others UR (%)All UR (%)
2021–223.94.42.44.14.1
2022–233.33.82.03.93.2
2023–243.13.31.93.83.2
This places OBC rates below the national average and other groups by 2023–24, though earlier NSS reports noted higher female unemployment for OBC at 6.2%. among OBC has been substantial, with rates declining from 30.4% to 3.6% in recent estimates, outpacing some forward groups but lagging Scheduled Castes and Tribes in multidimensional indices across states. State-level data from 2004–05 reveal OBC poverty at 11.2% in and higher in (around 40%), reflecting uneven progress tied to regional implementation. Overall, while quotas have facilitated entry into and roles, persistent gaps and uneven mobility suggest limited causal impact on closing broader socio-economic divides, with benefits accruing more to moderately advantaged OBC subsets than the most backward.

Arguments Against Caste-Based Reservations

Critics contend that caste-based reservations undermine by prioritizing group identity over individual competence, leading to suboptimal selection in and public employment. In competitive examinations, such as those for and colleges, reserved candidates often qualify with significantly lower scores—sometimes 20-30% below general category cutoffs—potentially resulting in institutions filled with underprepared students who contribute to reduced overall performance and innovation. This selection process, opponents argue, allocates scarce resources inefficiently, as evidenced by higher dropout rates among reserved students in elite institutions like the (IITs), where data from the early 2000s indicated that up to 20-25% of reserved admits failed to complete their programs compared to under 5% for merit-based admits. A persistent issue is the "" phenomenon, where affluent or educated members within Other Backward Classes (OBCs) disproportionately capture reservation benefits, sidelining the most disadvantaged intra-caste individuals. Introduced by the in the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment for OBCs, the creamy layer exclusion—currently set at an annual family income above ₹8 as of 2015—aims to target genuine backwardness, yet gaps allow better-off subgroups to dominate quotas. For instance, analyses of job data reveal that while OBC representation has risen to around 15-20% in services post-Mandal Commission in 1993, much of this accrual benefits urban, upper-strata OBC families rather than rural poor, exacerbating intra-group inequalities and questioning the policy's equity. Unlike OBCs, Scheduled Castes () and Scheduled Tribes (STs) lack formal creamy layer exclusions, amplifying criticisms of untargeted distribution. Reservations are faulted for entrenching consciousness rather than eroding it, as opportunities tied to birth-based categories incentivize and hinder . By institutionalizing as a primary axis for advancement, the system discourages individual effort and fosters dependency, with longitudinal data showing persistent -based occupational segregation despite decades of quotas—OBCs remain overrepresented in lower administrative roles while general category candidates crowd out in open competition. Opponents, including economists, advocate shifting to economic criteria, arguing that transcends and better addresses causal factors like access to quality schooling; empirical comparisons from states with partial economic quotas, such as Tamil Nadu's experiments, suggest improved targeting without the divisiveness of caste proxies. Furthermore, the policy induces reverse discrimination against non-reserved groups, particularly in oversubscribed sectors, where general category candidates face effective quotas exceeding 50% in some states due to sub-classifications. This has sparked protests and litigation, as seen in the 1990 Mandal agitation, where implementation led to self-immolations by upper-caste youth perceiving blocked mobility. While some studies claim no aggregate efficiency loss, critics highlight sector-specific harms, such as diluted standards in the and , where the has upheld merit safeguards in promotions to preserve institutional competence. Overall, these arguments posit that indefinite quotas distort incentives, prolonging rather than resolving disparities through non-merit means.

Proposals for Economic or Merit-Based Alternatives

Proponents of reforming India's reservation system for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) have advocated replacing -based criteria with economic indicators, such as family and asset holdings, to target more precisely at rather than presumed group disadvantage. This approach draws on the introduction of a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), applicable to general category individuals with annual family below ₹8 and limited land or property ownership, which the upheld in 2022 as constitutionally valid for addressing economic deprivation independently of . For OBCs, which empirical analyses indicate face comparatively lower structural barriers than Scheduled Castes or Tribes, economic criteria could maintain without markers, potentially reducing inefficiencies in allocation. A litigation filed in 2025 sought directives to integrate economic thresholds into SC, ST, and OBC reservations, arguing that affluent members within these groups currently capture benefits meant for the truly needy, as evidenced by on intra-group disparities. Economists like have critiqued quotas for subsidizing the non-poor within reserved categories and proposed decoupling reservations from by reimbursing educational costs directly to low- students via vouchers, ensuring aid reaches economic hardship irrespective of social origin. Such models prioritize causal links between and opportunity gaps, supported by surveys showing that correlates more strongly with levels than static identities in contemporary . Merit-based alternatives emphasize allocating jobs and educational seats primarily on performance metrics, supplemented by need-based financial aid to prevent exclusion of the economically disadvantaged. This includes proposals for "merit-cum-" policies in filling posts, where candidates from categories compete on ability but eligibility is capped by family to exclude the prosperous. Data from civil services examinations suggest that -neutral, merit-driven systems with economic safeguards could achieve diversity goals while enhancing overall efficiency, as quotas sometimes lead to mismatches between candidate skills and role demands. Hybrid frameworks, such as point-based scoring incorporating economic deprivation alongside merit scores, have been modeled to adjust for multidimensional backwardness without rigid quotas, using adjusted metrics derived from surveys. These reforms aim to foster long-term equity by incentivizing skill development over group entitlements, though implementation faces political resistance due to entrenched interests.

Contemporary Developments

Push for Nationwide Caste Census

The demand for a nationwide caste gained momentum following Bihar's state-level caste survey released on October 2, 2023, which enumerated Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs) at 63% of the population, prompting the state to increase reservations to 75% and fueling calls for updated national data to refine OBC quotas beyond the 1990s estimate of 52%. Opposition parties, including the and , intensified advocacy during the 2024 elections, arguing that accurate caste enumeration was essential for evidence-based and , as existing Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) 2011 data remained unpublished despite partial collection. Congress leader positioned the as a core promise, claiming in public rallies that it would expose underrepresentation of OBCs in power structures and enable proportional resource allocation, while criticizing the ruling (BJP) for delaying it to protect upper-caste interests. A Lokniti-CSDS survey in early 2025 across 20 states found 62% of 38,400 respondents supporting caste enumeration, reflecting broader public sentiment amid perceptions of outdated reservation policies. The central government, initially resistant due to concerns over data accuracy, administrative costs, and potential exacerbation of caste divisions, faced sustained parliamentary pressure, with opposition walkouts and resolutions demanding inclusion since 2023. On April 30, 2025, the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs approved enumeration in the forthcoming national census, delayed to 2026-27, marking the first comprehensive count since 1931 under British rule; Union Minister confirmed the decision, emphasizing its role in targeted welfare without specifying implementation timelines or sub-caste breakdowns. Opposition leaders hailed it as a concession to their agitation, with resolving to monitor for a "comprehensive and consultative" process, while Left parties deemed it "belated" and urged linkage to socio-economic surveys for policy efficacy. Proponents argue the data will enable empirical reassessment of OBC backwardness criteria under Article 16(4) of the , potentially informing sub-classifications and quota adjustments, though critics within the BJP warn of risks to national unity by reinforcing identities over economic merit. As of October 2025, detailed modalities remain under deliberation, with Bihar's survey serving as a model for enumerating over 200 castes but highlighting challenges in verifying self-reported data amid political incentives for over-claiming backward status.

State-Specific Quota Expansions and Conflicts

Several Indian states have pursued expansions of Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations in government jobs, education, and local body elections, often exceeding the 's 50% cap established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which permits breaches only under exceptional circumstances backed by quantifiable data on backwardness. These moves have triggered legal challenges in high courts and the , invoking the "" of adequate representation, backwardness, and overall cap compliance, as well as inter-community tensions where expansions dilute existing quotas. Tamil Nadu maintains a total reservation of 69%, including 30% for OBCs (split as 26.5% Backward Classes and 3.5% Backward Classes-Muslim, plus 20% Most Backward Classes), shielded by inclusion in the Ninth Schedule of the via the 1994 Tamil Nadu Reservations Act, exempting it from on the 50% limit. This structure, evolved from pre-independence quotas under the and post-1950 state laws, has faced minimal recent conflicts due to its entrenched status and broad political consensus, though it originated from empirical surveys like the 1921 Justice Party initiatives identifying caste-based disparities. In , the state government in 2024 raised OBC quota from 14% to 27% for public services and , pushing total reservations to approximately 63% (including 16% SC and 20% ST), justified by affidavits citing persistent underrepresentation in higher and jobs despite prior quotas, with data showing OBCs comprising 48% of the population but holding only 14-20% of posts. The in October 2025 heard arguments on relaxing the 50% cap as "flexible" for states with "deep-rooted exclusion," but the move drew criticism for lacking fresh empirical validation beyond self-reported data, potentially prioritizing political appeasement over merit-based access. Telangana's 2023 legislation enhanced OBC quota in urban local body elections from 27% to 42%, elevating total reservations beyond 67% (with 18% SC, 9% ST, and others), prompting a stay in September 2025 for failing the and empirical quantification of backwardness. The dismissed the state's appeal on October 16, 2025, upholding the cap's near-absoluteness absent extraordinary evidence, highlighting how such expansions often rely on outdated surveys rather than current socio-economic data. In , OBC quota stands at 19% within a 52% total framework, but expansions have fueled conflicts with the Maratha community, whose 10-13% separate quota demands since 2018 threaten to encroach on OBC shares through sub-classification or certificate inclusions. A September 2025 government resolution extending Maratha benefits via OBC-linked processes reignited protests, with OBC leaders arguing it dilutes their 27% effective share in and jobs, leading to verbal clashes and calls for sub-categorization to protect dominant OBC subgroups. Karnataka's total reservation reached 56% by 2023 via hikes like SC from 15% to 17%, with OBC at 32% (across categories 1-3B), but a 2025 report proposed elevating OBC to 51% based on 69.6% share, sparking debates over accuracy and overlaps with Muslim sub-quotas previously scrapped and reinstated. Conflicts arose from 2023-2025 adjustments shifting 4% Muslim reservation from OBC to EWS, deemed flawed by the for lacking backwardness evidence, underscoring tensions in reallocating quotas without comprehensive surveys.

References

  1. https://socialjustice.gov.in/common/31548
  2. https://anagrasarkalyan.gov.in/documnts/07-07-2017-10-03-31.pdf
  3. https://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/Mandal%20Commission%20Report%20of%20the%201st%20Part%20English635228715105764974.pdf
  4. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/mandal-commission/
  5. http://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/FAQ_SCST.pdf
  6. https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/the-mandal-commission-decoded-how-obc-reservation-came-into-effect-123102000445_1.html
  7. https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/obcs-decoded-how-backward-classes-in-india-were-categorised-and-recognised-123102000571_1.html
  8. https://sabrangindia.in/caste-census-survey-result-63-obcs-19-scs-and-1-68-sts-constitute-bihars-total-population/
  9. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-340-appointment-of-a-commission-to-investigate-the-conditions-of-backward-classes/
  10. https://ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/UserView.aspx?TypeID=1025
  11. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/hunter-commission-report/
  12. https://www.ndtvprofit.com/opinion/caste-and-class-in-colonial-india
  13. https://www.goimonitor.com/story/history-reservation-india
  14. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/justice-party-justice-movement/
  15. http://www.oiirj.org/oiirj/jan2015-special-issue/35.pdf
  16. https://www.nammakpsc.com/practices/miller-committee-report-in-mysore-state/
  17. https://www.thequint.com/lifestyle/books/book-excerpt-these-seats-are-reserved-abhinav-chandrachud-india-affirmative-action-reservations-policy
  18. https://socialjustice.gov.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/20201687776663.pdf
  19. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/amit-shah-congress-jawaharlal-nehru-obc-reservation-kalelkar-commission-report-backward-classes-2651544-2024-12-18
  20. https://socialjustice.gov.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/78251687858425.pdf
  21. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/mandal-commission/
  22. https://www.ncbc.nic.in/
  23. https://www.ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/UserView.aspx?TypeID=1172
  24. https://socialjustice.gov.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/ncbcact1993.pdf
  25. https://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/Guidelines%20English.pdf
  26. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/inclusion-of-new-castes-in-obc-list-supreme-court-seeks-quantifiable-data-on-backwardness-from-wb/
  27. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1783936
  28. https://sansad.in/getFile/loksabhaquestions/annex/1715/AU619.pdf?source=pqals
  29. https://pwonlyias.com/current-affairs/inclusion-of-caste-in-central-obc-list/
  30. https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/addition-of-casts-to-central-obc-list
  31. https://visionias.in/current-affairs/monthly-magazine/2024-06-22/polity-and-governance/other-backward-classes-obcs-list
  32. https://obc.delhi.gov.in/obc/citizen-charter
  33. https://forumias.com/blog/state-level-obc-groups-must-be-included-in-central-list/
  34. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/pushpendra-singh-writes-discrimination-other-backward-classes-obc-sub-categorisation-reservation-8083317/
  35. https://www.ncbc.nic.in/user_panel/centralliststateview.aspx
  36. https://upsc.gov.in/sites/default/files/FAQ-OBC-Final-20th-October-2021.pdf
  37. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/sub-categorisation-of-obcs-2
  38. https://www.levelupias.com/subcategorization-of-obcs/
  39. https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/rohini-commission-decoded-understanding-sub-categorisation-of-obcs-123102600760_1.html
  40. https://www.delhilawacademy.com/sc-obc-reservation-article-16/
  41. https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sub-classification-within-reserved-categories-judgement-summary/
  42. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/sub-categorization-within-obc
  43. https://www.shankariasparliament.com/current-affairs/subcategorisation-of-obcs
  44. https://m.thewire.in/article/caste/obc-sub-classification-indias-long-road-to-social-justice
  45. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/sub-categorisation-of-obcs-g-rohini-commission/
  46. https://secc.dord.gov.in/
  47. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/secc-of-2011-when-caste-data-was-collected-but-not-published-9977784/
  48. https://www.pewresearch.org/decoded/2021/06/measuring-caste-in-india/
  49. https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/36-population-is-obc-not-52-106050801060_1.html
  50. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR375/FR375.pdf
  51. https://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/nss_Report-544.pdf
  52. https://m.thewire.in/article/caste/a-look-back-at-the-indias-caste-census-journey
  53. https://www.insightsonindia.com/2023/08/07/justice-rohini-panels-findings/
  54. https://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/Report%2520on%2520Sub-Categorization%2520within%2520OBCs%2520-2015-%2520Pandey635681469081640773.pdf
  55. https://www.juscorpus.com/decoding-the-creamy-layer-doctrine-from-indira-sawhney-to-devendra-singh/
  56. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/for-creamy-layer-exclusion-govt-looks-at-proposal-on-equivalence-10185707/
  57. https://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/Report%2520on%2520Income%2520Criteria%2520for%2520Creamy%2520Layer%2520-Pandey635817940067450735.pdf
  58. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/need-of-the-hour-is-to-raise-obc-creamy-layer-income-limit-house-panel-tells-govt/article69400882.ece
  59. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editorial/creamy-layer-reservation-system
  60. https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/revision-of-creamy-layer-income-limit-need-of-the-hour/
  61. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2097601
  62. https://sprf.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/23.12.2020_Reservations-Reclassification-and-the-Economic-Hierarchy-of-Caste.pdf
  63. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00219096241230480
  64. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/mixed-trends-in-unemployment-rates-for-sc-st-obc-and-others-over-the-last-three-years-an-in-depth-analysis/articleshow/113671657.cms
  65. https://www.mospi.gov.in/labour-force-participation-rate-lfpr-worker-population-ratio-wpr-and-unemployment-rate-ur-usual
  66. https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/public-health/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-nfhs-5-report-documents-changes-in-india/article65463437.ece
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9337695/
  68. https://blog.lukmaanias.com/2022/01/14/caste-dimensions-of-poverty-and-wealth/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11630627/
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378694429_Population_Estimates_of_Social_Groups_Reliability_of_large_scale_survey_of_NSS_NFHS
  71. https://sleepyclasses.com/indra-sawhney-vs-union-of-india/
  72. https://.in/india/governance/obc-representation-in-central-govt-employment-is-rising-but-remains-below-mandal-commission-norms/2230684/
  73. https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1579065
  74. https://www.clearias.com/reservation-in-india/
  75. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/reservation/
  76. https://pwonlyias.com/reservations-in-india/
  77. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=169513
  78. https://obcrights.org/blog/reservation/obc-st-faculty-crisis-80-83-posts-vacant-in-central-universities/
  79. https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/reservation-in-central-government-posts
  80. https://doptcirculars.nic.in/OM/ViewOM.aspx?id=471
  81. https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/rationalisation-creamy-layer-employment-obcs
  82. https://www.clearias.com/obc-reservation-eligibility/
  83. https://upsc.gov.in/sites/default/files/Clarification_CreamyLayerOBC.pdf
  84. https://services.india.gov.in/service/detail/application-for-caste-verification-report-obc-1
  85. https://documents.doptcirculars.nic.in/D2/D02adm/36033_4_97_01April2005.htm
  86. https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/FAQ_SCST.pdf
  87. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/May/07/how-do-states-differ-in-enumerating-castes
  88. https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/caste-census-central-state-obc-lists-govt-avoid-2011-pitfalls-10070354/
  89. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/in-9-years-govt-got-1084-complaints-of-fake-caste-certificates-for-jobs-92-sacked-9533063/
  90. https://theprint.in/opinion/newsmaker-of-the-week/12-attempts-fake-certificates-puja-khedkar-case-shows-how-far-indians-can-go-for-power/2182805/
  91. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/parliament-panel-calls-for-online-verification-to-combat-fake-obc-certificates-101743515804040.html
  92. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/why-centre-is-considering-equivalence-in-application-of-creamy-layer-condition-in-obc-quota-10197523/
  93. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/ncbc-raises-questions-on-bengals-revised-obc-list/articleshow/121854540.cms
  94. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394841938_Political_Dynamics_of_OBC_Reservation_A_Historical_Analysis
  95. https://www.ijhssi.org/papers/vol14%283%29/14038490.pdf
  96. https://www.granthaalayahpublication.org/Arts-Journal/ShodhKosh/article/download/5243/4756/27872
  97. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/from-surge-to-slump-confusion-over-obc-quota-causes-dip-in-number-of-applications-for-ug-courses-in-bengal-students-await-court-verdict/articleshow/122943068.cms
  98. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/do-reservations-have-to-be-below-50-from-balaji-1962-to-indra-sawhney-1992/
  99. https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-reservation-debate-in-balaji-v-state-of-mysore/
  100. https://www.manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/MANU_SC_0080_1962
  101. https://blog.ipleaders.in/indra-sawhney-v-union-of-india-and-ors-1992-case-analysis/
  102. https://www.lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/indira-sawhney-v-union-of-india/
  103. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1219385/
  104. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/constitution-of-india/ashoka-kumar-thakur-v-union-of-india-2008-6-scc-1-138
  105. https://lawbhoomi.com/ashoka-kumar-thakur-v-union-of-india/
  106. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/10/20/legal-analysis-of-recent-judgments-on-reservation-policies-in-india-legal-research-legal-news-updates-2/
  107. https://nyujilp.org/fragmentation-or-fairness-the-indian-supreme-courts-judgment-on-sub-classification-of-scs-and-sts/
  108. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/telangana/42-backward-class-quota-in-local-body-polls-supreme-court-dismisses-telanganas-plea-against-hc-order/article70170489.ece
  109. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/supreme-court-news-telangana-42-percent-obc-reservation-9465486
  110. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/madhya-pradesh-urges-supreme-court-to-treat-50-quota-cap-as-flexible/article70117558.ece
  111. https://news.locallaw.in/madhya-pradesh-obc-reservation-27-percent-supreme-court-case/
  112. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-notice-to-centre-on-plea-to-introduce-a-system-similar-to-creamy-layer-concept-for-scst-reservations/article69927216.ece
  113. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/up-to-legislature-executive-to-decide-on-barring-creamy-layer-from-sc/st-quota-sc/articleshow/117096653.cms
  114. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/raipur/chhattisgarh-high-court-rules-migrants-cannot-transfer-caste-status-for-reservation-benefits/articleshow/111753584.cms
  115. https://www.ndtvprofit.com/opinion/can-inter-state-migrants-get-the-benefit-of-reservation
  116. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/no-supreme-court-relief-for-bengal-over-quashing-of-obc-status-of-77-castes-6267550
  117. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-stays-calcutta-hc-order-on-west-bengal-obc-list/article69864349.ece
  118. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/09/11/reserved-candidates-migration-to-general-category-seats-barred-supreme-court/
  119. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/apex-court-lifts-hc-stay-on-west-bengal-obc-list/articleshow/122961072.cms
  120. https://theprint.in/opinion/education-levels-of-sc-st-obc-rising-a-new-study-looks-at-caste-gap-in-jobs-income-too/606200/
  121. https://www.rochester.edu/college/faculty/alexander_lee/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/respaper4.pdf
  122. https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/nss_Report-543.pdf
  123. https://www.pmfias.com/poverty-reduction-in-india/
  124. https://socialjustice.gov.in/common/76672
  125. https://ijeponline.org/index.php/journal/article/download/4/11/14
  126. https://www.kashmirpen.in/the-impact-of-reservation-on-merita-critical-analysis/
  127. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358975876_Argument_For_And_Against_The_Reservation_In_India
  128. https://www.questjournals.org/jrhss/papers/vol11-issue10/11107478.pdf
  129. https://juriscentre.com/2025/08/13/reservation-in-india-an-unfiltered-analysis/
  130. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199889
  131. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/sco-daily-judgment-upholding-reservations-based-on-economic-criteria-explained/
  132. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/sc-to-examine-pil-for-income-based-reservation-system-for-sc-st-members/articleshow/123243479.cms
  133. https://theprint.in/report/unlike-china-india-has-made-some-of-the-biggest-policy-blunders-surjit-bhalla/25003/
  134. https://www.epw.in/engage/article/caste-or-economic-status-what-should-we
  135. https://www.impriindia.com/insights/merit-based-education-system-india/
  136. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/should-merit-cum-income-policy-guide-filling-quota-posts/articleshow/123245138.cms
  137. https://agdhruv.github.io/files/reservation-compass20.pdf
  138. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/10/4/how-a-landmark-caste-census-in-india-threatens-modis-grip-on-power
  139. https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/bihar-caste-census-2025-election-impact-rjd-bjp-strategy/article69561171.ece
  140. https://inc.in/congress-sandesh/national/resolution-adopted-on-caste-census-by-the-congress-working-committee
  141. https://scroll.in/latest/1081881/pressure-on-government-for-caste-census-worked-says-rahul-gandhi
  142. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/said-it-before-pm-modi-rahul-gandhi-jabs-at-bjp-over-caste-census-9104097
  143. https://m.thewire.in/article/politics/push-for-caste-census-reflects-broader-public-demand-survey
  144. https://thediplomat.com/2025/05/whats-the-caste-census-that-indias-pm-modi-agreed-to-under-opposition-pressure/
  145. https://theprint.in/politics/amid-suspense-over-response-to-pahalgam-modi-govt-announces-caste-census-oppn-claims-victory/2610096/
  146. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/cabinet-caste-census-history-9974909/
  147. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/02/nx-s1-5384777/india-caste-census
  148. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/better-late-than-never-congresss-victory-opposition-leaders-react-to-centres-caste-census-decision/articleshow/120767649.cms
  149. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/belated-decision-say-left-parties-on-caste-census/article69510926.ece
  150. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/how-a-caste-census-could-transform-indias-reservation-policies/
  151. https://m.thewire.in/article/caste/saying-caste-census-will-take-place-not-enough-opp-keeps-up-pressure-after-bjps-u-turn
  152. https://www.ijprems.com/uploadedfiles/paper/issue_6_june_2025/42205/final/fin_ijprems1750342766.pdf
  153. https://www.insightsonindia.com/2025/09/04/should-india-raise-reservation-beyond-50/
  154. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/telangana/quota-for-obc-in-local-body-polls-should-be-within-triple-test-framework-set-by-supreme-court-telangana-high-court-3760641
  155. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/how-reservation-policy-shaped-over-decades-ensured-tn-stayed-ahead/articleshow/85575607.cms
  156. https://theprint.in/judiciary/deep-rooted-exclusion-how-mp-justified-to-sc-its-27-obc-quota-move-breaching-50-overall-cap/2755625/
  157. https://swarajyamag.com/news-brief/madhya-pradesh-govt-pushes-supreme-court-to-flex-50-reservation-cap-for-obc-quota-hike-from-14-to-27-in-state-services-5
  158. https://www.news18.com/india/still-obcs-stand-when-upper-castes-pass-mp-govt-cites-data-to-justify-quota-hike-in-sc-9635105.html
  159. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/42-obc-quota-must-be-reconciled-with-law-hc-101758999744342.html
  160. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/telangana-42-per-cent-obc-reservation-quota-local-body-polls-10314341/
  161. https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/obc-backlash-to-maratha-quota-move
  162. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/war-of-words-erupts-between-obc-stalwarts-bhujbal-wadettiwar-over-maratha-quota/articleshow/124676120.cms
  163. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/adopt-sub-categorisation-obc-quota-maratha-obc-battle-banjara-community-10260128/
  164. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/supreme-courts-50-quota-cap-raises-questions-over-karnatakas-56-reservation-3770550
  165. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/bengaluru-news/karnataka-reservation-quota-now-at-56-full-breakdown-for-sc-st-and-obc-categories-101756956540466.html
  166. https://m.economictimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/karnataka/karnatakas-murky-muslim-quota-row-heres-what-you-need-to-know/articleshow/109667406.cms
  167. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/caste-census-report-obc-reservation-proposed-to-be-hiked-from-32-to-51/article69443654.ece
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.