Context:
The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) has recommended that the Centre exclude 35 communities — predominantly Muslim — from the Central list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in West Bengal. The recommendation has triggered debates around social justice, constitutional provisions, and reservation policy, particularly concerning the criteria for inclusion in the OBC list.
Background:
-
-
- OBC Reservation: Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution empower the State to make special provisions for the advancement of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), including reservations in education and public employment.
- West Bengal Context: West Bengal’s OBC list expanded significantly over the past decade, with the inclusion of several Muslim communities. Concerns were raised that some inclusions may have been based on religion rather than objective socio-economic backwardness, which is constitutionally impermissible.
- OBC Reservation: Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution empower the State to make special provisions for the advancement of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), including reservations in education and public employment.
-
NCBC Recommendation:
-
-
- After reviewing the socio-economic status of communities in West Bengal, the NCBC recommended that 35 communities be removed from the Central OBC list.
- The recommendation underscored that religion alone cannot be the sole criterion for reservation, in line with judicial pronouncements of the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court.
- After reviewing the socio-economic status of communities in West Bengal, the NCBC recommended that 35 communities be removed from the Central OBC list.
-
Constitutional Aspects:
|
Aspect |
Details |
|
Article 15(4) |
Empowers the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) or SC/STs, including reservations in educational institutions. |
|
Article 16(4) |
Allows the State to make reservations in public employment for SEBCs to ensure adequate representation of backward communities in government services. |
|
Article 338B |
Establishes the NCBC as a constitutional body to advise on the inclusion or exclusion of communities in the OBC list, review safeguards, and ensure compliance with constitutional provisions. |
|
Judicial Interpretation |
Courts have consistently held that religion alone cannot justify OBC status; inclusion must be based on objective indicators such as literacy levels, occupation patterns, income, and social discrimination. |
|
Federal Dimension |
States may prepare their own OBC lists, but the Central OBC list—used for Central government employment and education—must conform to constitutional norms and NCBC guidelines. |
Broader Implications:
-
-
- Upholding the Constitutional Mandate: Ensures that reservations are grounded in objective criteria of backwardness, preserving the integrity of affirmative action policies.
- Centre–State Dynamics: Highlights tensions between state-specific OBC lists and the Central list, underscoring the NCBC’s role in standardising inclusion criteria.
- Judicial Oversight: Reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional principles and reviewing the legality of reservation policies.
- Upholding the Constitutional Mandate: Ensures that reservations are grounded in objective criteria of backwardness, preserving the integrity of affirmative action policies.
-
Conclusion:
The NCBC’s recommendation to exclude 35 communities from West Bengal’s Central OBC list underscores the importance of aligning reservation policies with constitutional principles and judicial precedents. It highlights the need for objective assessment of social and educational backwardness, while also bringing into focus the complex challenges of balancing social justice, federalism, and political considerations.
