Every year on November 26, India celebrates Constitution Day to honor the adoption of the Constitution in 1949—a document that embodies the nation’s vision of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. This day is a reminder of the transformative power of the Constitution in addressing historical injustices and fostering a more inclusive society. While the Constitution has been a guiding light in uplifting marginalised communities, it also highlights the unfinished journey toward social justice, particularly for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Dr BR Ambedkar resigned from his cabinet position in 1951, expressing deep dissatisfaction with the government’s neglect of backward classes as one of the reasons. He criticised the government for its failure to take concrete steps toward the upliftment of these communities, including the delay in constituting a commission to identify and address their socio-economic challenges, despite the provision under Article 340 of the Constitution.
For OBCs, Constitution Day underscores the paradox of progress and persisting inequities. Despite being a cornerstone of affirmative action, the Constitution’s provisions have not fully realised justice for OBCs, who form a significant portion of India’s population but remain underrepresented in education, employment, and political arenas. As the nation reflects on its constitutional legacy, it is an opportune moment to revisit and strengthen the framework to address the gaps that hinder OBCs from accessing their rightful opportunities and representation.
Historical neglect of OBC reservations
The framers of the Constitution recognised the need for affirmative action to address historical injustices. Articles 14, 15, and 16 laid the foundation for equality and non-discrimination while Article 340 empowered the President to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and recommend measures for their advancement.
However, in the initial decades post-independence, OBCs were overlooked in the implementation of affirmative action. While reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) were operationalised from the outset, it was not until the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) case—commonly referred to as the Mandal case—that OBCs were granted 27% reservations in public employment. Even this came after decades of political and social agitation, and the delay reflects the systemic neglect of OBC aspirations.
The situation in higher education remained dire until 2007, when the same 27% reservation for OBCs was extended to Central Educational Institutions through the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act. For decades, OBCs faced systemic barriers in accessing quality education and employment opportunities, perpetuating cycles of poverty and exclusion.
A major impediment to the effective implementation of OBC reservations has been the 50% cap on reservations imposed by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney judgement. This arbitrary ceiling has constrained states from providing reservations to OBCs proportionate to their population and backwardness, creating a persistent gap between the constitutional promise of social justice and its realisation on the ground.
The 50% ceiling on reservations has far-reaching consequences across multiple domains, significantly hindering the advancement of OBCs. In education, OBC students are forced to compete for limited reserved seats, leaving many excluded from opportunities despite their socio-economic disadvantages, thereby perpetuating generational inequities. In employment, particularly in higher bureaucratic positions, the underrepresentation of OBCs highlights the inadequacy of current policies, as the ceiling restricts proportional opportunities for upward mobility and inclusion in decision-making roles. Similarly, in local body elections, the application of the ceiling to Panchayati Raj institutions and municipalities has diluted OBC representation in grassroots governance, undermining the constitutional vision of decentralisation and inclusive democracy. These interconnected challenges demand urgent reforms to ensure equitable representation and meaningful participation of OBCs in all spheres of public life.
The judiciary has often acted as a barrier to the effective implementation of OBC reservations, citing constitutional provisions in ways that limit their scope. For instance, the imposition of the 50% ceiling on reservations in the Indra Sawhney judgement, based on an interpretation of Articles 14, 15, and 16, created an artificial limit that disproportionately affected OBCs, despite their significant population and socio-educational backwardness. In cases related to local body elections, such as K Krishnamurthy vs Union of India (2010) and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs State of Maharashtra (2021), the Supreme Court struck down OBC quotas in local governance unless backed by rigorous empirical data fulfilling the ‘triple test’ requirement. This test mandates that states (1) set up a dedicated commission to identify OBC backwardness, (2) base quotas on precise, contemporary data, and (3) ensure total reservations, including those for SCs and STs, do not exceed 50%. These judicial interpretations, while ostensibly upholding constitutional equality, have imposed procedural hurdles that often render OBC reservations inoperative, further marginalising these communities in grassroots governance.
Political representation: A glaring omission
To address the historical and ongoing injustices faced by OBCs, it is imperative to strengthen constitutional provisions and guarantee their equitable representation across all levels of governance. Unlike SCs and STs, who have explicit political reservations in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies under Articles 330 and 332, OBCs lack such guarantees. This absence reflects a significant gap in the constitutional framework, leaving OBCs underrepresented in legislative processes and limiting their ability to influence policies critical for their socio-economic advancement. Without political reservations, the dominance of socially and economically privileged groups continues unabated, further marginalising OBCs in governance.
While Articles 243D(6) and 243T(6) provide for the reservation of seats for OBCs in Panchayati Raj institutions and municipalities respectively, these provisions are subject to the discretion of state legislatures. This conditionality, coupled with the imposition of the 50% ceiling on total reservations by the judiciary, has diluted OBC representation even at the grassroots level. The lack of uniformity in the application of these provisions exacerbates the exclusion of OBCs from local governance, undermining the constitutional vision of decentralisation and inclusive democracy.
Constitutional amendments for comprehensive justice
It is also crucial to strengthen constitutional provisions for the upliftment of OBCs through a comprehensive social justice framework. A key step in this direction is the explicit recognition of OBCs as a distinct category in the Constitution, separate from the broader term of SEBCs. This differentiation is essential to ensure that the unique challenges of OBCs are addressed with clarity and focus. Additionally, proportional reservations in education and employment should be provided by amending Articles 14, 15, and 16, ensuring that OBC representation is commensurate with their population and socio-economic backwardness. Such a step would rectify the inadequacies stemming from the restrictive 50% reservation cap, which has long limited their access to opportunities.
Furthermore, political reservations for OBCs in the Lok Sabha, state legislatures, and local bodies are imperative to enhance their representation in governance and policy-making processes. This inclusion would empower OBCs to participate meaningfully in shaping policies that directly impact their lives. To safeguard these measures from judicial challenges and ensure their uninterrupted implementation, it is equally vital to place all reservation-related provisions under Schedule IX of the Constitution. Together, these reforms can lay the foundation for a more equitable and inclusive society, fulfilling the promise of social justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The promise of the Indian Constitution remains unfulfilled for OBCs. Their struggle for equality, representation, and dignity demands a robust constitutional response. Recognising OBCs explicitly, ensuring proportional representation, and safeguarding their rights through constitutional amendments are not just measures of affirmative action—they are essential steps toward realising the Constitution’s vision of justice, equality, and fraternity for all. By embracing these reforms, India can take a decisive step toward correcting historical wrongs and building a truly inclusive democracy.
Kiran Kumar Gowd is a PhD research scholar at the Department of Political Science at the University of Hyderabad. He is also the national president of the All India OBC Students Association. Views expressed are the author’s own.