Sub-Categorisation of OBCs

Historical Evolution of the OBC Reservation Status in India?

• The journey began with the establishment of the Kalelkar Commission in 1953, which marked the first instance of recognizing backward classes beyond the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) on a national level.
• In 1980, the Mandal Commission Report estimated that the OBC population constituted 52% and identified 1,257 communities as backward.
• To address the inequity, it suggested an increase in the existing quotas (which were previously applicable only to SC/ST) from 22.5% to 49.5%, extending the reservation to include OBCs.
  • Following these recommendations, the central government implemented the reservation policy, reserving 27% of seats in union civil posts and services for OBCs under Article 16(4). This policy was also enforced in central government educational institutions under Article 15(4).
• In 2008, the Supreme Court intervened and directed the central government to exclude the "creamy layer" (advanced sections) among the OBCs from benefiting from the reservation policy, ensuring that it reaches the most disadvantaged.
• In 2018, 102^nd Constitution Amendment Act granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

This elevated the NCBC from its previous status as a statutory body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, giving it more authority and recognition in safeguarding the interests of backward classes, including the OBCs.

The Justice G. Rohini-headed Commission for the sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBC) caste groups submitted its long-awaited report to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment after nearly six years of work.

The details of the recommendations have not been made public yet, and the government is expected to deliberate on the report before any implementation.

The commission was set up on 2^nd October, 2017 under Article 340 of the Constitution (President’s power to appoint a Commission to investigate the conditions of the backward classes).

Terms of Reference:

• • Examine the inequitable distribution of benefits among OBCs listed in the Central List.
  • Propose a scientific approach and parameters for sub-categorisation within OBCs.
  • Identify and classify the respective castes or communities into their respective sub-categories.
  • Study the entries in the Central List of OBCs and recommend corrections for repetitions, ambiguities, inconsistencies, and errors in spelling or transcription.

• In 2020, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India reopened the legal debate on sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for reservations.
  • Disagreeing with its 2005 Constitution Bench verdict, the SC asserted that there are unequals within the list of SCs, STs and socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs).
    • In the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005), the Supreme Court held that the Scheduled Castes form one homogenous group.
    • Therefore, any inter-se classification within the Scheduled Castes would be a violation of Article 14.
    • In other words, it prohibited sub-categorisation of SCs.
  • The SC referred the issue of preferential treatment for certain sub-castes within the SCs and STs to a larger bench
• The argument for sub-categorisation or creating categories within OBCs for reservation is that it ensures "equitable distribution" of representation among all OBC communities.
• To examine this, the G Rohini Commission was constituted by the Central government in 2017.
• OBC- The expression ‘OBC’ was coined to denote backward/ marginalised communities and castes that were not Scheduled Castes (SCs) or Scheduled Tribes (STs).
• It is recognised that social backwardness in India has traditionally been a direct consequence of caste status, and that other types of backwardness have flowed from this initial handicap.
• Reservation- The affirmative action for OBCs is mandated by Article 15(4) of the Constitution-

“Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 [non-discrimination with regard to admission into state educational institutions on grounds of religion, caste, etc] shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens”

• Article 16(4)- It allows the State to make provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
• Categorisation- OBCs have been generally identified on the basis of their occupation like cultivation of own land, tenant farming, agriculture labour etc.,
• Two broad categories within the OBCs emerge,
  • Those who own land – Eg: Yadavs and Kurmis in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh
  • Those who do not own land

What is sub-categorisation of OBCs?

Article 340 provides for the appointment of a Commission to investigate the conditions for the improvement of socially and educationally backward class

• It refers to creating subgroups of backward castes within the OBC category.
• Need for sub-categorisation - OBCs get 27% reservation in central government jobs and admission to educational institutions.
• There are more than 2,600 entries in the Central List of OBCs, but over the years, a perception has taken root that only a few affluent communities among them have benefited from the quota.
• Therefore, there is an argument that a “sub-categorisation” of OBCs is needed in order to ensure “equitable distribution” of the benefits of reservation.
• Sub-categorization of OBCs in States – It has been done in States such as Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, etc.
• Sub-categorization of OBCs in Central List – In 2017, Justice Rohini Panel was appointed to examine the sub-categorisation of OBCs.

What committees were formed regarding OBCs?