History and Methods of Formulating OBC Lists — 2025 Paper II
Trace the history and describe the methods of formulating the lists of OBCs, both at the State and National levels.
Model Answer
VAID ICSIntroduction
Other Backward Classes are constitutionally understood as socially and educationally backward classes other than SCs and STs. Because backwardness differs across regions, India has maintained State lists for State purposes and a Central List for Union services and institutions. The history of these lists reflects commissions, judicial review and constitutional amendments.
Historical development
- Provincial beginnings: Mysore, Madras and some princely/provincial administrations used backward-class categories before Independence.
- Constitutional basis: Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 340 authorised special provisions and investigation of backward classes.
- Kaka Kalelkar Commission (1953-55): the First Backward Classes Commission identified numerous communities and suggested welfare and reservation measures. The Union did not implement its scheme, citing conceptual and evidentiary weaknesses; Kalelkar himself expressed reservations about excessive reliance on caste.
- Mandal Commission (1979-80): the Second Commission used eleven weighted social, educational and economic indicators, estimated OBCs at 52 per cent, and recommended 27 per cent reservation in Central services.
- Implementation and judicial review: The Union announced implementation in 1990. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) upheld 27 per cent OBC reservation, required exclusion of the creamy layer and favoured a permanent commission.
- Institutionalisation: The National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 created the NCBC and a formal Central List. The 102nd Constitutional Amendment (2018) gave the NCBC constitutional status under Article 338B and inserted Article 342A.
- 105th Amendment (2021): clarified that States and Union Territories may, by law, prepare and maintain their own SEBC lists for their purposes, even when entries differ from the Central List.
Method at the State level
A community submits evidence to the State Backward Classes Commission. The Commission examines social status, customary occupation, educational attainment, representation in public employment, economic conditions, regional distribution and comparison with already listed groups. It may commission surveys and conduct public hearings before recommending inclusion, exclusion or sub-classification. The State government then acts under its law/policy for State reservations. Criteria and procedures vary by State.
Method for the Central List
Proposals are ordinarily supported by the concerned State/UT and scrutinised by the NCBC through records, field data, hearings and relative social-educational backwardness. The Commission advises the Union. Under Article 342A, the President notifies the Central List for Central purposes, while Parliament has the power to include or exclude classes. The creamy-layer rule determines individual eligibility for reservation; it does not remove the community from the list.
Mandal indicators and current issues
The Mandal method assigned greater weight to four social indicators, followed by three educational and four economic indicators; a score of 11 out of 22 indicated backwardness. Its strength was multidimensionality, but current listing faces outdated data, varying State standards, internal OBC inequality and political pressure. The Justice G. Rohini Commission, constituted in 2017 to examine inequitable distribution of Central OBC reservation benefits and develop criteria for sub-categorisation, submitted its report to the President on 31 July 2023. Because its contents have not been officially published, leaked formulas or numerical findings should not be presented as settled recommendations. Periodic socio-educational surveys and transparent reasons remain essential.
Conclusion
OBC lists evolved from commission-based identification to a dual constitutional system: a Central List for Union purposes and autonomous State lists for State purposes. Their legitimacy requires contemporary data, creamy-layer exclusion, internal equity and independent commission scrutiny rather than electoral bargaining alone.
Diagram to draw: Community claim -> State survey/hearing -> State list; State evidence + NCBC scrutiny -> Union advice -> Central List under Article 342A.
Selected authentic sources: Constitution of India, Articles 15(4), 16(4), 338B, 340 and 342A; Kaka Kalelkar and Mandal Commission Reports; Indra Sawhney judgment (1992); NCBC Act 1993; 102nd and 105th Constitutional Amendments; PIB release on submission of the Justice G. Rohini Commission report (31 July 2023).
Want feedback on your answer?
Join the Anthropology workshop or get structured answer-writing guidance from VAID ICS.