Reservation policy in India rests on classification of Backward Classes as a 'class' rather than a 'caste'. Discuss the constitutional and administrative significance of this distinction.

The Constitution nowhere makes caste the unit of reservation: Articles 15(4), 16(4) and 340 speak of "socially and educationally backward classes", and Indra Sawhney (1992) held that a caste may be a class in India but is not automatically one [1]. This framing carries far-reaching consequences.

Constitutional significance

• Reconciles reservation with the equality code: Articles 15(1) and 16(2) forbid discrimination on grounds of caste; affirmative action survives scrutiny only because it targets a backward class, not a caste preference [1].
• Keeps backwardness a testable criterion, enabling the creamy-layer exclusion and the 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney, which a pure caste headcount could not sustain [1].
• Contrast with SC/ST: Articles 341–342 create closed Presidential Lists of named castes and tribes. For OBCs there is no such enumeration; the 102nd Amendment inserted Articles 338B, 342A and 366(26C), giving a Central List of classes vetted by the NCBC [2].
• Consequently the OBC list stays open and revisable — communities may enter or exit as social conditions change.

Administrative significance

• Central and State OBC lists are drafted as classes: many entries are occupational or descriptive (for instance, communities engaged in begging), alongside synonyms and sub-groups, rather than discrete castes [3].
• The Justice Rohini Commission was set up precisely to correct repetitions, ambiguities and spelling errors in the Central List and sought caste-wise data it did not have — proof that the list cannot double as a caste register [4].
• Hence for Census 2027, officials dropped OBC lists as the enumeration base; SC/ST will follow Presidential Lists while other castes are recorded through an open column during Population Enumeration (February 2027) [3][5].

The distinction is what keeps reservation a defensible instrument of substantive equality rather than a caste tally. Going forward, a firm standardisation protocol under the Registrar General, with NCBC vetting, can convert Census 2027's caste data into reliable class categories — supplying the evidence base the Rohini Commission lacked and advancing Article 46's promise of social justice.