Context: The Justice G Rohini commission set up to examine the sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) submitted its report to the President of India recently. But, the contents of the report have not been made public as yet.

Background

• The Kalelkar Commission,1953, was the first to identify backward classes other than the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) at the national level.

• The Mandal Commission Report, 1980 estimated the OBC population at 52% and classified 1,257 communities as backward. It recommended increasing the existing quotas, which were only forSC/ST, from 22.5% to 49.5% to include the OBCs.

• In 2008, the Supreme Court directed the central government to exclude the creamy layer (advanced sections) among the OBCs.

• The Justice Rohini Commission was constituted under Article 340 of the Constitution in recognition of the perceived distortions in the affirmative action policy. It was seen that a few castes cornered the bulk of benefits available under the 27% quota for OBCs.

Constitutional Provisions for OBC

• Article 15 (5): This clause was added in the 93rd amendment in 2005 and allows the state to make special provisions for backward classes or SCs or STs for admissions in private educational institutions, aided or unaided.

• Article 16(4): This clause allows the state to reserve vacancies in public service for any backward classes of the state that are not adequately represented in the public services.

• Article 16(4B): This allows the state to consider unfilled vacancies reserved for backward classes as a separate class of vacancies not subject to a limit of 50% reservation.

• Article 340: This Article provides the president the power to  appoint a Commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes.

• Article 338B: This article provides constitutional status for the National Commission for Backward Classes, through the 102nd Amendment. 

Need for sub-categorisation of OBCs

• There are more than 2,600 entries in the Central List of OBCs, but over the years, a perception has taken root that only a few affluent communities among them have benefited from the quota. 

• Therefore, there is an argument that a “sub-categorisation” of OBCs (quotas within the 27% quota) is needed in order to ensure “equitable distribution” of the benefits of reservation.

A 2018 analysis by the same commission showed

• 97% of all jobs and education seats to total OBS quota have gone to 25% of OBC castes, and 24.95% of these jobs and seats have gone to just 10 OBC communities.

• As many as 983 OBC communities — 37% of the total — were found to have zero representation in jobs and educational institutions

• 994 OBC sub-castes had a representation of only 2.68% in recruitments and admissions. 

• A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in August 2020( State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh) also ruled that the 2005 decision of another five-judge Bench in ‘E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh’ must be revisited.

E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2005 Judgement

• It held that no special sub-quota can be introduced within the quota for SCs and STs for the benefit of castes or tribes that were more backward than the others on these lists. 

Terms of reference of the Rohini Commission

• Examine the extent of inequitable distribution of benefits of reservation among the castes or communities included in the broad category of OBCs with reference to such classes included in the Central List;

• Work out the mechanism, criteria, norms and parameters in a scientific approach for sub-categorisation within such OBCs;

• Take up the exercise of identifying the respective castes or communities or sub-castes or synonyms in the Central List of OBCs and classifying them into their respective sub-categories.

• To study the various entries in the Central List of OBCs and recommend correction of any repetitions, ambiguities, inconsistencies and errors of spelling or transcription.