Other Backward Classes: commissions, creamy layer, NCBC and sub-categorisation

Detail

Who are the OBCs?

• Other Backward Classes (OBCs): communities, other than SCs and STs, that are socially and educationally backward.
• The Constitution's own term is socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) (Art. 15(4), Art. 340, Art. 342A).

• "Backward" here means more than poor. These groups lag behind in social standing and in schooling.

• Size: the National Sample Survey (NSS) 2004-05 put OBCs at about 41% of the population (NCERT: Class 10, Gender, Religion and Caste).

• The Census does not count OBCs. It counts only SCs and STs. So every OBC estimate comes from surveys or old data.
• Affirmative action means special help that the state gives a disadvantaged group, such as reserved seats or jobs. It aims at real equality of opportunity, not just equal treatment on paper (NCERT: Class 11, Equality).

Backward Classes Commission (Art. 340)

• Art. 340(1): the President may appoint a commission to study:
• the conditions of SEBCs;
• the difficulties they face;

• the steps the Union or the states should take to help them.

• Art. 340(2)–(3): the commission reports to the President. The President lays the report before each House of Parliament, with a memorandum on the action taken.

• Three bodies have been set up under Art. 340: Kalelkar (1953), Mandal (1979) and Rohini (2017) [3].

Kalelkar Commission (First Backward Classes Commission)

• Chaired by Kaka Kalelkar. Appointed 1953, report 1955.
• Listed 2,399 backward castes. 837 of them were marked "most backward".
• The chairman's own covering letter doubted using caste as the test of backwardness.
• Result: the Union rejected the report and left it to the states to identify backward classes.

Mandal Commission (Second Backward Classes Commission)

• Chaired by B.P. Mandal. Appointed 1 January 1979, report 31 December 1980.
• Method: it used 11 indicators of backwardness: social, educational and economic.
• Findings:
• it identified 3,743 castes as backward;

• it estimated OBCs at 52% of the population, using 1931 Census data (the last census that counted caste).

• Recommendation: 27% reservation for OBCs.

• SC (15%) + ST (7.5%) + OBC (27%) = 49.5%. This kept total reservation under 50%.

• Implementation:

• DoPT Office Memorandum (OM) of 13 August 1990 gave 27% in central jobs. (An OM is an executive order issued by a ministry.)
• The OM was challenged. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) upheld it, with a creamy layer exclusion and a 50% ceiling on total reservation.
• OBC reservation actually began in September 1993.

OBC reservation in jobs and education

• Central government jobs: 27% since 1993 (Art. 16(4): the state may reserve posts for backward classes that are not adequately represented in its services).
• Education:
• P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005): the state cannot force quotas on private unaided colleges (colleges that take no government money).

• Parliament's response:

  • 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act 2005 added Art. 15(5). It lets the state make special provisions for SEBCs, SCs and STs in admissions, including private institutions, aided or unaided. Minority institutions under Art. 30(1) are left out.
  • Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006 gave 27% OBC seats in central institutions such as IITs, IIMs and central universities.

• Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (10 April 2008):

• upheld the 93rd Amendment and the 2006 Act for state-run and state-aided institutions;
• required the creamy layer to be excluded;

• left open the question of private unaided institutions.

• Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014): a 5-judge bench extended Art. 15(5) to private unaided institutions. It held that the 93rd Amendment does not violate the basic structure (the core features of the Constitution that even Parliament cannot destroy).

• Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India (2022): upheld OBC (27%) reservation in the All-India Quota seats of NEET medical admissions. It said merit must be seen in its social context.
• Local bodies: OBC quotas in panchayats and municipalities must pass the "triple test" (Vikas Kishanrao Gawali, 2021). This is covered under panchayati raj.

Creamy layer

• Creamy layer: the better-off members of a backward class. They are excluded from OBC reservation, so that benefits reach those who still need them.
• Origin:
• Indra Sawhney (1992) ordered the government to identify the creamy layer.
• The Expert Committee under Justice R.N. Prasad drew up the criteria.

• Its work became the DoPT OM of 8 September 1993.

• How the 1993 OM decides creamy-layer status. It looks at the parents, not the candidate:

• Status test: children of people in constitutional posts (e.g. President, judges, UPSC members) and of Group A and Group B officers (direct recruits) are excluded.
• Income/wealth test: applies to everyone else. Salary and farm income are left out when income is counted.

• The candidate's own income and the spouse's income are not counted [10].

• Income limit (income/wealth test):

Year	Limit (annual parental income)
1993	₹1 lakh
2004	₹2.5 lakh
2008	₹4.5 lakh
2013	₹6 lakh
2017	₹8 lakh

• In 2017 the Union Cabinet raised the limit from ₹6 lakh to ₹8 lakh. The reason given was the rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) [7].

• The CPI principle for revising the limit was adopted by the Cabinet in 2004. The limit has not been changed since 2017 [8]. A revision is pending (verify).

• PSU equivalence (2017): the Cabinet approved matching posts in central PSUs, banks and insurance bodies with government posts. This lets children of their lower-grade staff get OBC benefits [9].

• Indra Sawhney II (2000): Kerala refused to apply the creamy layer. It claimed no creamy layer existed among its OBCs. The Court struck this down, because excluding the creamy layer is part of equality under Arts. 14 and 16.

Union of India v. Rohith Nathan (11 March 2026)

• Citation and bench: 2026 INSC 230. Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan [10].
• Facts:
• Rohith Nathan got All India Rank 174 in the Civil Services Examination 2012 as an OBC candidate.
• His father worked at a private firm (HCL Technologies) and earned a salary above the limit. So he was put in the creamy layer [10].

• The CAT Chennai (12 January 2017) and the Madras High Court (31 August 2017) ruled for him. The Union appealed [10].

• The problem: para 9 of the DoPT letter of 14 October 2004.

• For PSU and private employees whose posts had no government equivalent, para 9 counted salary income.

• Government employees' children were judged by post, and their salary was ignored [10].

• Holdings:

• A clarificatory letter (2004) cannot override the 1993 OM. Income is only a stand-in where post equivalence has not been worked out [10].
• Deciding creamy-layer status by income alone, without looking at the parent's post, is unsustainable in law [10].

• Excluding wards of PSU and private employees on salary alone, while government employees' wards are judged by post, is hostile discrimination. Equals are treated unequally, which breaks Arts. 14, 15 and 16 [10].

• Directions:

• All the Union's appeals were dismissed [10].
• The government must create supernumerary posts (extra posts outside the normal count) for candidates who qualify as non-creamy layer. DoPT had already promised such posts in the 21st Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of OBCs (2018-19) [10].
• The government must implement within six months of the judgment [10]. (Verify implementation.)

NCBC: from statutory to constitutional body

• National Commission for Backward Classes Act 1993: created the NCBC as a statutory body (set up by an ordinary law). Its job was limited to advising on adding castes to, or removing them from, the central OBC list. Indra Sawhney had directed that such a permanent body be set up.
• 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act 2018 (passed as the Constitution (123rd Amendment) Bill, 2017):
• gave the NCBC constitutional status [6];

• inserted three provisions: Art. 338B, Art. 342A and Art. 366(26C) [5].

• Art. 338B (NCBC):

• investigates and monitors safeguards for SEBCs;
• inquires into specific complaints about denial of their rights;
• advises on their socio-economic development and reports to the President.
• The Union and the state governments must consult the NCBC on all major policy matters affecting SEBCs [5].

• NCBC composition is covered under constitutional bodies.

• Art. 342A:

• the President, after consulting the Governor, notifies the SEBCs for a state or UT by public notification;
• only Parliament, by law, can later add castes to that list or remove them;

• the 102nd Amendment gave the President this power "for all purposes" [6].

• Art. 366(26C): defines SEBCs as the classes deemed SEBCs under Art. 342A.

Maratha judgment and the 105th Amendment

• Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra (5 May 2021), the "Maratha reservation case":
• struck down the Maratha quota, which broke the 50% ceiling without exceptional circumstances;

• by a 3:2 majority, read Art. 342A as taking away the states' power to identify SEBCs. Only the central list would count.

• 105th Constitutional Amendment Act 2021 (August 2021):

• It was introduced as the Constitution (127th Amendment) Bill, 2021 in the Lok Sabha on 9 August 2021 [4].
• It restored the states' power through Art. 342A(3) and an amended Art. 366(26C).
• States and UTs may prepare their own SEBC lists by law. These lists may differ from the central list. The central list is only for the Union's own purposes [4].
• States need not consult the NCBC when they prepare their own lists [4].

Feature	102nd Amendment (2018)	105th Amendment (2021)
Bill number	123rd Bill, 2017	127th Bill, 2021 [4]
Main change	NCBC made constitutional (Art. 338B); Art. 342A and 366(26C) added	Art. 342A(3) added; Art. 366(26C) amended
Who identifies SEBCs	President's list (read by the Court in 2021 as the only list)	Central list for the Union; each state keeps its own list [4]
Trigger	Demand for a stronger NCBC	Maratha judgment (2021)

Sub-categorisation: the Rohini Commission

• Sub-categorisation: dividing the OBC quota into smaller groups, so that the more backward castes inside the OBC list get a fixed share and dominant OBC castes cannot take all of it.
• Set up: under Art. 340, by notification of 2 October 2017. Chaired by Justice G. Rohini, retired Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court [2][3].

• Terms of reference [2]: 1. examine how unevenly reservation benefits are shared among castes in the central OBC list; 2. work out a scientific method, with criteria and norms, for sub-categorisation; 3. correct repetitions, ambiguities, inconsistencies and spelling or transcription errors in the central list.

• Timeline: 14 extensions. Report given to the President on 31 July 2023 [2]. The report has not been made public.

• 2018 analysis (central jobs and central university admissions):
• about one-quarter of central-list OBC castes took about 97% of jobs and seats;

• nearly a thousand castes got nothing (verify figures).

• States already sub-categorise:

• Bihar: OBCs split into Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) and Backward Classes (BC).

• Andhra Pradesh and Telangana: BC groups A, B, C, D (and E).

• Link: the SC sub-classification judgment (2024) raised the same question of fairness within a reserved group.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 340 → President appoints a backward classes commission. Kalelkar (1953), Mandal (1979) and Rohini (2017) were all set up under it.
• Kalelkar: 2,399 castes (837 most backward), and the Union rejected the report. Mandal: 3,743 castes, 52% estimate (1931 data), 11 indicators, 27% quota.
• Trap: the 102nd Amendment Act came from the 123rd Bill, and the 105th Act came from the 127th Bill [4].
• 102nd Amendment (2018) → Art. 338B (NCBC), Art. 342A, Art. 366(26C) [5]. 105th Amendment (2021) → Art. 342A(3), so states can again make their own SEBC lists [4].
• Case–principle pairs: P.A. Inamdar (2005) → no quotas in private unaided colleges. Ashoka Kumar Thakur (2008) → 93rd Amendment upheld, creamy layer excluded. Pramati (2014) → Art. 15(5) valid for private unaided colleges. Neil Aurelio Nunes (2022) → OBC quota in NEET All-India Quota.
• Creamy layer: DoPT OM of 8 September 1993 (Prasad Committee). The income test excludes salary and farm income. The limit has been ₹8 lakh since 2017 [7][8].
• Indra Sawhney II (2000) → struck down Kerala's refusal to apply the creamy layer.
• Rohith Nathan (2026) → judging PSU or private wards by salary alone is hostile discrimination (Arts. 14, 15, 16), and supernumerary posts were ordered [10].
• Art. 15(5) does not cover minority educational institutions under Art. 30(1).

Mains Points

• Fair shares within the quota:
• The Rohini data (a quarter of castes taking about 97% of benefits) shows that dominant OBC castes capture most gains.

• Sub-categorisation would spread benefits more fairly. But the report is still not public, and caste data is not reliable without a caste count in the Census.

• Creamy layer design:

• The limit has stayed at ₹8 lakh since 2017 [8], even though prices have risen, so it no longer tracks CPI.
• Rohith Nathan shows the deeper flaw: PSU and private posts have no government equivalent, so income stands in for status [10].

• Reform options: regular revision linked to CPI, and a full equivalence exercise across all sectors.

• Federalism:

• The Maratha reading of Art. 342A, then the 105th Amendment, shows Parliament acting to protect the states' role in identifying backward classes [4].

• But separate central and state lists can confuse people and cause disputes, and the 50% ceiling still limits what states can do.

• Constitutional NCBC: under the 102nd Amendment it hears complaints and must be consulted on policy [5]. But it advises only, and its power over the lists is weaker since states no longer need to consult it on their own lists [4].