The National Commission for Backward Classes Explained

The National Commission for Backward Classes is the constitutional body that deals with the rights and interests of the socially and educationally backward classes in India, commonly referred to as Other Backward Classes or OBCs. It was given constitutional status by the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2018, which inserted Article 338B into the Constitution and replaced the earlier statutory commission that had existed since 1993.

The story of the National Commission for Backward Classes cannot be separated from the larger history of reservation in India: the Kalelkar and Mandal Commissions, the landmark Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992, and the continuing debate about who counts as backward and who should be excluded as the “creamy layer”. This explainer traces that history, describes how the Commission is set up and what it does, and explains how OBC lists are prepared and revised.

What Are Backward Classes

The Constitution does not use the term “Other Backward Classes” in its original text, but it refers to “socially and educationally backward classes of citizens” in Articles 15(4) and 340. Article 16(4) permits the State to make reservations in appointments for “any backward class of citizens” that is not adequately represented in the services of the State.

OBCs are therefore a group defined by social and educational disadvantage and not by caste alone, although in practice caste has been used as the main identifier. This differs from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who are listed by Presidential Orders under Articles 341 and 342. Backward classes occupy a middle position in the structure of affirmative action: they are not outside the caste system in the way that Scheduled Castes have historically been treated, but they have faced limited access to education, land and government service.

It is important to distinguish three constitutional categories:

• Scheduled Castes: Communities recognised under Article 341 because of the historical stigma of untouchability.
• Scheduled Tribes: Communities recognised under Article 342 based on traditional characteristics such as primitive traits, geographical isolation and distinct culture.
• Socially and educationally backward classes: Communities identified through commissions and criteria, now formalised in Article 342A and dealt with by the Commission under Article 338B.

Article 340 and the First Backward Classes Commission

The constitutional starting point for the study of backwardness is Article 340. It empowers the President to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes, to identify the difficulties they face and to recommend steps to improve their condition. The commission’s report is laid before Parliament along with a memorandum of action taken.

Using this power, the government appointed the first Backward Classes Commission in 1953 under Kaka Kalelkar. The Commission submitted its report in 1955 and drew up a list of backward classes using criteria based on social, educational and economic factors. Its recommendations, however, were not accepted for implementation at the national level. The government had reservations about the use of caste as the principal criterion and the report was not followed through. Even so, the Kalelkar Commission set a precedent for state governments, and many states began to prepare their own backward class lists.

The Mandal Commission

The Second Backward Classes Commission was set up in 1979 under B. P. Mandal, a former Member of Parliament, and is widely known as the Mandal Commission. It was appointed under Article 340 and submitted its report in 1980.

Method and findings

The Commission used eleven indicators grouped into social, educational and economic categories. It looked at issues such as how a caste was regarded by others, the proportion of its members who married at an early age, the extent of manual labour, school attendance and ownership of assets. On this basis, it identified a large number of castes and communities as socially and educationally backward, which together were estimated to be a substantial portion of the country’s population.

Recommendations

The principal recommendation was that 27 per cent of seats in central government jobs and public sector undertakings should be reserved for OBCs. This figure was arrived at to keep total reservation, together with the existing reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, under 50 per cent. The Commission also recommended similar reservation in admissions to educational institutions and suggested wider measures such as land reforms and technical education.

The report remained under consideration for a decade. In August 1990, the Union government announced its decision to implement the recommendation of 27 per cent reservation in central government services. The decision was followed by widespread protests and legal challenges, and these led to the landmark judicial decision discussed below.

The Indra Sawhney Judgment

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, decided in November 1992, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court examined the Mandal Commission’s recommendations and the government’s decision to implement them. The judgment is among the most important in the history of Indian reservation law, and its rulings still guide the framework.

• Reservation upheld: The Court upheld the 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in central government posts.
• The 50 per cent ceiling: It held that, as a general rule, the total reservation should not exceed 50 per cent, though exceptional circumstances could justify going beyond it.
• Creamy layer exclusion: It held that the more advanced sections among the backward classes must be excluded from the benefit of reservation.
• Promotions: It held that Article 16(4) did not permit reservation in promotions, which was later altered for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by constitutional amendments.
• Permanent body: It directed the central and state governments to create permanent bodies to examine requests for inclusion and complaints of wrong inclusion or exclusion in the lists of backward classes.

The direction to create permanent bodies led directly to the setting up of the statutory National Commission for Backward Classes in 1993.

The Statutory Commission of 1993

To implement the Court’s direction, Parliament passed the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, and the Commission was set up in August 1993. It consisted of a Chairperson, who was to be a serving or retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, and several members, including a social scientist, persons with special knowledge of backward classes and a Member-Secretary.

The statutory Commission’s main role was advisory. It examined requests for inclusion of any class of citizens in the central list of OBCs, and it heard complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion. Its advice was ordinarily binding on the central government, under the Act. However, it did not have the power to inquire into the grievances of backward classes in general, or to monitor the safeguards available to them. The Commission did not have the constitutional standing enjoyed by the commissions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and this gap in status became one of the arguments for constitutional recognition.

The 102nd Constitutional Amendment, 2018

The Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018 was passed by Parliament and came into force in August 2018. It repealed the 1993 Act and gave the Commission constitutional status by inserting two new articles.

Article 338B

Article 338B provides that there shall be a National Commission for Backward Classes, with a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and three other members. They are appointed by the President under warrant, and their conditions of service and tenure are determined by the President by rule. The article closely follows Articles 338 and 338A and gives the Commission the same type of duties and powers.

Article 342A

Article 342A deals with the lists. It states that the President may, by public notification, specify the socially and educationally backward classes for each state or Union Territory, after consulting the Governor in the case of a state. Parliament may by law include or exclude classes from the list. A new definition in Article 366(26C) describes the socially and educationally backward classes as those so deemed under Article 342A for the purposes of the Constitution.

Why it mattered

The amendment gave the Commission the same constitutional footing as the other national commissions, and it extended the Commission’s role from advising on lists to the wider work of protecting and promoting the interests of backward classes.

Functions of the Commission

Article 338B(5) lists the duties of the Commission. They mirror the functions of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.

• To investigate and monitor matters relating to safeguards provided for socially and educationally backward classes under the Constitution, any law or any government order, and to evaluate how they work.
• To inquire into specific complaints regarding the deprivation of rights and safeguards of these classes.
• To participate and advise on the socio-economic development planning of the backward classes and to evaluate their progress under the Union and the states.
• To present reports to the President annually and at other times on the working of those safeguards.
• To recommend measures to be taken by the Union or a state for effective implementation of those safeguards.
• To discharge other functions relating to the protection, welfare, development and advancement of backward classes as the President may specify.

Under Article 338B(8), the Commission has the powers of a civil court when investigating or inquiring into any matter. These include summoning persons, requiring the production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses. Reports submitted to the President must be laid before Parliament, with a memorandum on the action taken.

How OBC Lists Work

The method of listing is a source of frequent confusion because India has more than one OBC list.

The central list

The central list is used for reservation in posts and services under the Central Government and in educational institutions run by or funded by it. Inclusion in this list follows the process of examination by the Commission and notification by the government.

State lists

Each state also maintains its own OBC list for state jobs and state institutions. A community can be on a state list but not on the central list, or the other way round, and the names and categories often differ from one state to another. The state lists are drawn up by state governments, usually on the advice of state backward classes commissions.

The 2021 clarification

After the 102nd Amendment, a question arose about whether states could still draw up their own lists. In a 2021 judgment on the Maratha reservation in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that, after the amendment, the power to identify socially and educationally backward classes for the purposes of the Constitution lay only with the President and Parliament. In response, Parliament passed the Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2021, which restored the power of states and Union Territories to prepare and maintain their own lists for their own purposes.

The Creamy Layer Concept

The creamy layer principle was laid down in Indra Sawhney. The idea is that, within a backward class, some families have become socially and economically advanced enough that they no longer need the benefits of reservation. Excluding them is meant to ensure that the benefit reaches those who are still disadvantaged.

In 1993, the Department of Personnel and Training issued an office memorandum listing the categories of persons to be treated as the creamy layer. The main groups include:

• Persons holding constitutional posts such as the President, Vice-President, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and members of the Union Public Service Commission.
• Children of officers in higher grades of civil services and defence services, according to defined rules.
• Persons in certain professions such as medicine, law and engineering, subject to income criteria.
• Persons with high agricultural landholding or substantial income from other sources.

An income and wealth test applies to many of these categories. The original income ceiling in 1993 was Rs 1 lakh per annum, and the figure has been revised by the government from time to time. Because this threshold changes, readers should check the current notification instead of relying on a remembered number. The creamy layer principle applies to OBCs and not to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Related Constitutional and Policy Developments

Several other developments shape the context of the Commission’s work.

The question of sub-categorisation, which concerns whether more backward groups within the OBC list should receive a separate share of the quota, has been a topic of study and debate. The commission appointed in 2017 examined this and presented its report, and the issue remains a matter of policy discussion.

Debates and Criticisms

As with any system of affirmative action, the way backward classes are identified and supported attracts a range of views. A balanced account notes the main arguments without taking sides.

• Supporters argue that the OBC reservation corrects historical disadvantage, widens representation in public institutions and has increased access to education and employment for groups that were previously underrepresented.
• Critics of the current design argue that the benefits are concentrated among relatively better-off subgroups, that creamy layer limits are not updated or applied consistently, and that data on OBC population and representation is incomplete.
• Calls for data: Some groups have asked for caste enumeration in the census to assess the population and condition of backward classes, while others express concerns about its social effects. The last full caste enumeration in a census was in 1931.
• Federal concerns: The split between central and state lists and the debate after the 102nd Amendment show the tension between national uniformity and state-level knowledge of local conditions.

Conclusion

The National Commission for Backward Classes represents the culmination of a process that began with Article 340 of the original Constitution, passed through the Kalelkar and Mandal Commissions, was shaped by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney and was finally given constitutional status in 2018. Its role now extends from advising on the inclusion and exclusion of communities in the lists to inquiring into grievances and evaluating the safeguards available to backward classes.

The questions it deals with, such as who is backward, how benefits should be distributed and how the central and state roles should be divided, continue to evolve through legislation, court decisions and public debate. Understanding the Commission’s background helps explain why these questions are so central to Indian public life. Last reviewed: 2 October 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which article gives constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes?

Article 338B, inserted by the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, gives constitutional status to the Commission. The same amendment also inserted Article 342A, which deals with the list of socially and educationally backward classes.

What was the Commission before 2018?

Before 2018 it was a statutory body set up under the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, following the Supreme Court’s direction in the Indra Sawhney case. Its main role was to advise on requests for inclusion in, and complaints of wrong inclusion or exclusion from, the central OBC list.

What was the Mandal Commission?

The Mandal Commission was the Second Backward Classes Commission, set up in 1979 under B. P. Mandal and reporting in 1980. It recommended 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in central government jobs, a recommendation the government decided to implement in 1990.

What is the creamy layer?

The creamy layer refers to the socially and economically advanced members of a backward class who are excluded from reservation benefits. The idea was laid down in the Indra Sawhney judgment, and the criteria and income limits are set by the government and revised from time to time.

Do states have their own OBC lists?

Yes. Besides the central list, each state keeps its own list of backward classes for state jobs and institutions. After the Supreme Court’s 2021 Maratha reservation ruling, the 105th Amendment restored the states’ power to prepare and maintain their own lists.

Does the Commission have the powers of a court?

While investigating or inquiring into a matter under Article 338B, it has the powers of a civil court, including summoning witnesses and requiring the production of documents. Its findings are recommendations to the government and are reported to the President and Parliament.