Latest revision as of 18:17, 16 October 2023

[edit] History

[edit] 1831-2006

Publication:Times Of India Delhi; Date:May 5, 2007; Section:Times Nation; Page Number:11

A history of the OBC quota in India

FROM MADRAS TO MILLENNIUM

1831 Madras Presidency gives reservation in public service to backward classes

1902 Reservation for backward classes in education in princely state of Kolhapur

1918 Miller Committee, first committee on BCs in India, appointed

1921 Reservation for BCs in education in princely state of Mysore and in Madras

1931 Reservation for ‘Depressed Classes’ in Bombay Presidency following report of Starte Committee

1935 Reservation for BCs in princely state of Travancore

1950-68 Punjab, Bihar, Gujarat, MP introduced reservation for OBCs

1951 Madras (now TN) introduces 16% reservation for SC/ST and 25% for OBCs

1953 First Backward Classes (Kaka Kelkar) Commission set up, gave its recommendations in 1955

1971 DMK government increases OBC reservation in TN to 31% and SC/ST reservation to 18%

1980 Report of Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) submitted. TN increases OBC reservation to 50%

1990 V P Singh Government announces implementation of Mandal Commission recommendations, gives 27% quota to OBCs in government jobs

1992 Supreme Court order upholds OBC reservation, but says total reservation cannot exceed 50%. Also says “creamy layer” should be excluded

1994 SC asks TN not to exceed 50% in quotas. Prompts state to move legislation granting 69% reservation to Ninth Schedule of constitution

2006 Jan | The 93rd Constitution Amendment Act amends Article 15 of the constitution to provide quotas for OBCs in all “educational institutions” except minority institutions

2006 May | UPA government announces plan to grant 27% quota for OBCs in centrally-funded institutions of higher learning by increasing the total number of seats.

2006 June | SC says that it has right to scrutinise the constitutionality of the proposed OBC quota in education

[edit] 1990

[edit] Was the Aug 90 announcement made in haste?

Himanshi Dhawan, Nov 28, 2021: The Times of India

Detractors have long held that Vishwanath Pratap Singh’s August 1990 announcement enforcing 27% OBC quota on central government jobs was a hasty political decision to retain the support of party MPs after deputy PM Devi Lal quit the government. But a new book reveals that Singh had, in fact, begun the groundwork for acceptance of the Mandal commission report within weeks of taking charge.

Singh was sworn in as PM in December 1989, and immediately took preliminary steps, including announcing an ‘action plan’ on December 25, 1989 and setting up a committee chaired by Devi Lal to oversee the process. He also directed the social welfare ministry to match the Mandal report’s list of OBC castes for each state with the lists already in use by many of them, to iron out anomalies. In this he was aided by the then social welfare minister Ram Vilas Paswan and secretary PS Krishnan.

Krishnan is quoted as saying, “On taking over in January 1990, I prepared an agenda of things to get done, among which implementing the Mandal report was foremost,’ he said. ‘I knew, given the nature of the government, that it would not last long. So, there was no time to lose.’ He submitted a note on the Mandal report to the cabinet on 1 May 1990, placing it in historical and legislative perspective, pointing out that enforcing it needed no parliamentary approval but a mere executive order. Other senior bureaucrats, who had to acquiesce before it reached the cabinet, raised objections, but Krishnan rebutted all their arguments. “Cabinet secretary Vinod Pande told me, we’ve to find a way out of the Mandal problem for VP Singh,” he said. “I said, Problem? That’s not what he told me. VP Singh wants to enforce Mandal.”

Krishnan’s claims are part of a new book ‘The Disruptor: How Vishwanath Pratap Singh Shook India’ by journalist Debashish Mukerji. Krishnan was a strong advocate of social justice legislation and later served on the national commission of backward classes. The rush of events at the time did, however, see OBC leaders like Lalu Prasad and others push Singh and the Mandal announcement was certainly a big and unexpected surprise.

Singh’s detractors had termed the step political, taken solely due to Singh’s differences with Devi Lal. For instance, Sharad Yadav, then minister for textiles and food processing in Singh’s cabinet, says the PM’s hand was forced. “We were both committed to the Mandal Commission report, but VP Singh was not too enthusiastic about implementing it immediately,” he added. “I told him, if you want Lok Dal(B) MPs to stay with you, you have no choice. You either bring it in or we go with Devi Lal (deputy PM who had quit following differences with Singh).” Gardan pakad ke karwaya unsey (I held him (figuratively) by the neck and got him to do it).’ It is another matter that the strategy failed, and VP Singh’s government fell three in November 1990. The frenzied agitation against the Mandal report led to a complete metamorphosis of Singh’s image among the urban — and largely upper-caste — middle classes, who had once been his loudest supporters; he was now reviled for starting a caste war for political gain. ‘After Mandal, it was as if I was a different person,’ he said later.

Singh’s grandchildren — Richa and Adrija, then aged eight and six, respectively —had to face public ire too. “Teachers taunted us in class and the kids would make up scurrilous rhymes about VP Singh and sing them before us in the playground,” said Richa. “My art teacher flung my drawing book into the dustbin, saying, ‘You can’t draw, you’re about as good at it as your grandfather is at governance,” recalled Adrija. ‘In revenge, a friend and I emptied a bottle of Fevicol into her handbag when she wasn’t looking.’

[edit] The men who implemented the Mandal quota

Dec 1, 2021: The Times of India

Three people played crucial supporting roles in VP’s historic decision to adopt the Mandal Commission report, sustaining him through the storm that followed. The first was Sharad Yadav, minister for textiles and food processing in his cabinet, himself an OBC Yadav by caste, who still smarted from the caste humiliation he had faced from teachers at his village school in the Hoshangabad district of Madhya Pradesh, despite his father being a grain merchant and fairly wealthy.

“VP Singh telephoned me in the evening (of August 1, 1990) and said he was finding it difficult to work with Devi Lal [deputy PM],” said Sharad Yadav. “I said, ‘Don’t be hasty; don’t ask him to resign or any such thing.’” VP then revealed that he had already removed Devi Lal from the cabinet. They agreed on a breakfast meeting the next morning, at 7, Race Course Road, which lasted over three hours.

“We were both committed to the Mandal Commission report, but VP Singh was not too enthusiastic about implementing it immediately,” Yadav added. “I told him, ‘If you want the Lok Dal [B] MPs to stay with you, you have no choice. You either bring it in or we go with Devi Lal.’ Gardan pakad ke karwaya unsey (I held him [figuratively] by the neck and got him to do it).”

VP Singh proposed announcing the decision in his Independence Day speech, due in a fortnight. Sharad Yadav suggested he do it sooner. “I said, ‘That might be too late. It should be announced before Devi Lal holds his August 9 rally,’” he recalled.

Both of them realised that Devi Lal, for all his earlier indifference to the report, could well declare at his rally that he had been keen to enforce it but that VP had been obstructing him. Their announcing its implementation thereafter would be politically fruitless.

The second was Ram Vilas Paswan, minister for social welfare, who, though a Dalit and not an OBC, was much influenced by the Samyukta Socialist Party, which he had joined in his early youth, and was thereby a strong advocate of OBC reservation. In March 1990, when VP found the Devi Lal-chaired committee inactive, he had turned to Paswan for the preparatory spadework, whose ministry, in any case, was vital to the report’s implementation.

The third was PS Krishnan, secretary in the social welfare ministry, to whom Paswan entrusted the task. Krishnan was a 1956-batch IAS officer from the Andhra Pradesh cadre, who combined exhaustive knowledge of the legislative and judicial history related to Dalit and OBC reservations, with a marked bent in their favour. “On taking over in January 1990, I prepared an agenda of things to get done, among which implementing the Mandal report was foremost,” he said. “I knew, given the nature of the government, that it would not last long. So there was no time to lose.”

He submitted a note on the Mandal report to the cabinet on 1 May 1990, placing it in historical and legislative perspective, pointing out that enforcing it needed no parliamentary approval but a mere executive order. Other senior bureaucrats, who had to acquiesce before it reached the cabinet, raised objections, but Krishnan rebutted all their arguments. “Cabinet Secretary Vinod Pande told me, ‘We have to find a way out of the Mandal problem for VP Singh,’” he said. “I said, ‘Problem? That’s not what he told me. VP Singh wants to enforce Mandal.’”

Krishnan estimated that the note reached VP by the end of May 1990, after its passage through the law ministry. VP wrote to all the state chief ministers, seeking their opinion, in June 1990 — only the chief ministers of UP and Bihar replied, both supporting its prompt enforcement — but it was brought before the cabinet only on August 2, 1990, the day after he axed Devi Lal.

Barring Sharad Yadav and Paswan, most ministers were surprised. “Pehle se koi build-up nahi tha, pata bhi nahi tha kisiko (There was no previous build-up, no one knew it was coming),” said Arif Khan. But with the report’s implementation having been promised in the Janata Dal manifesto, no one dissented on that day either. Arif Khan, however, presciently worried about how their supporting parties — the BJP and the communists — would respond, though he realised that no party would risk opposing the decision publicly, given the size of the OBC vote bank.

At the next cabinet meeting the following day, when the report was discussed again, he maintained he was the only one to demur. “Arun Nehru, Ajit Singh and I had met earlier and decided to raise objections together, but at the meeting I was the only one to speak up,” he said. “I had nothing against the Mandal proposals. Lekin maine ek imandari ki baat ki, aap ek nayi cheez karna chahte hain, hamari majority nahi hai, aap BJP aur CPM ke sahyog se sarkar chala rahein hain (I brought up a matter of probity. You want to introduce something new. We don’t have a majority. We are running the government with the support of the BJP and the CPI [M]). Why not involve them?”

But VP knew that since neither party favoured it, trying to convince them would lead to further delays, while August 9, 1990 loomed. Between the two cabinet meetings, on the evening of August 2 1990, there was also a boisterous National Front parliamentary party meeting in the Parliament Annexe, which Som Pal, having been elected to the Rajya Sabha by then, attended. The MPs were overwhelmingly supportive of introducing the Mandal recommendations; indeed, the meeting also offered evidence of VP’s slipping prime ministerial authority, as some of them openly admonished him for the delay in doing so until then.

“The meeting went on for four hours, with 27 MPs speaking,” said Som Pal. “One of the MPs, an OBC belonging to Chandra Shekhar’s faction, had the temerity to say sarcastically, ‘Jab tak iss desh ka PM savarn hoga, Mandal Commission lagoo nahi ho sakta [As long as the country’s Prime Minister is an upper-caste individual, the Mandal Commission report will never be implemented.]’”

That really provoked VP Singh. He gave a chronology of all that had been done until then, saying, “The Mandal list of OBCs and the state lists need to be reconciled; I’ve put a dozen joint secretaries on the job.”

“Bahaneybaji (excuses),” some MPs yelled back. VP Singh stood up and said, “Let’s decide the date to introduce it right now.”’

The meeting chose August 7, 1990, the day Parliament would reopen for a fresh session. On the evening of August 6, 1990, Krishnan, Paswan and VP met for a final discussion at 7, Race Course Road, where Krishnan drafted the brief speech enforcing the Mandal report that VP had to make in the Lok Sabha the next day. It was only then that VP also made brief calls to top leaders of the BJP, the CPI and the CPI (M), informing them of his decision. BJP President Lal Krishna Advani tried hard to dissuade him, suggesting that the subject could be discussed at length at their weekly Tuesday dinner, only two days away. “VP Singh’s reply was, ‘No I cannot wait. I have to announce it tomorrow,’” Advani recalled in his memoirs.

The official notification was issued on August 13, 1990, with the government listing only those castes as OBCs that were common to the Mandal Commission’s and the state governments’ lists — about 1,200 of them. 
Excerpted with permission from The Disruptor: How Vishwanath Pratap Singh Shook India (Harper Collins India).

[edit] Exemptions

[edit] Exemption for certain educational institutes/ 2007

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009

UP varsity may be exempt from giving quota to OBCs

Univ Already Meets Upper Limit Of 50% SC/ST Reservation

Akshaya Mukul | TNN

New Delhi: In a move that could stir OBC politics in the Hindi heartland, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (BBAU) in Lucknow, a central university, is being exempted from giving reservation to OBCs in admission.

Till now, BBAU has not been giving reservation to OBCs as SC/ST quota already meets the upper limit of 50%. For long, denial of reservation to OBCs has been a issue in BBAU.

Exemption from OBC reservation to BBAU and other kinds of exemptions — all related to quota — to central educational institutions in the north-east states are part of the series of amendments proposed in the Central Educational Institutions (reservation in admission) Amendment Act.

The amendment proposal does not mention BBAU but most of the exemptions, sources said, were specific to one institution or the other. For instance, the amendment seeks to bring down OBC reservation to less than 27% in states like Tripura and Sikkim where SC/ST reservation is around 34%. Here, reservation for OBCs will be only 16%.

There is also a proposal to apply reservation policy of the state government to state seats in a central educational institution. Last year, a peculiar situation had arisen in National Institute of Technology, Agartala and HRD ministry had to protect state reservation through a presidential order.

The amendment defines “north-east” to cover all north-eastern states including Sikkim but excludes the non-tribal areas of Assam. This has been done since two central universities — Tezpur University and Assam University — are in non-tribal areas and will be able to implement 27% OBC reservation.

The amendment also seeks to extend the period of implementing reservation from three years to six years. Now, all central educational institutions and universities will have time till 2012. This has been done so that universities like Jamia Milia Islamia can implement OBC reservation.

For the last three years, JMI has been defying HRD ministry on reservation. With concerted attempt to give it a tag of minority institution, it is unlikely that reservation in JMI will become a reality soon.

The amendment also proposes to increase the number of seats in unpopular branches of study or faculty. The proposal says increase will be with reference to the number of seats in that subject in the year OBC reservation came into force or the number of seats actually filled, whichever is less.

Caste Cauldron?

Exemption from OBC quota is part of the series of amendments proposed in the Central Educational Institutions Amendment Act

The amendment seeks to extend the period of implementing reservation from three years to six years. Now, all central educational institutions have time till 2012

The amendment proposes to increase the no. of seats in unpopular branches of study

[edit] Local elections

[edit] Triple test must for local polls: SC, 2022

Dhananjay Mahapatra, January 20, 2022: The Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court declined to recall its month-old orders quashing 27% OBC quota in panchayat polls in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh and said the state election commissions would dereserve OBC seats in all future local body elections across India unless such quota is determined in strict compliance of SC's triple-test guidelines.

A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, DM Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar firmly told the Centre, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, each of which had filed separate applications for recall of the consecutive SC orders on December 15 and 17 quashing 27% OBC quota in Maharashtra and MP, "there is no question of recalling our orders as these were passed after hearing all sides."

Giving omnibus status to the two orders by making applicable to all states and UTs the triple test principle laid down by the SC in March 2021 for determining quantum of reservation for socially and economically backward classes (SEBCs), the bench said, if the state governments in future reserved seats for OBC in local bodies "without complying the triple test requirement, then the state election commissions must ensure that the so reserved OBC seats go to election as open category seats."

The SC in its March 4, 2021 judgment in Vilas Krishnarao Gawli judgment had provided for the triple test benchmark for states in quantifying OBC quota in local body elections. The three tests are: "1) To set up a dedicated Commission to conduct contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of the backwardness qua local bodies, within the State; 2) To specify the proportion of reservation required to be provisioned local body wise in light of recommendations of the Commission, so as not to fall foul of over breadth; 3) In any case such reservation shall not exceed aggregate of 50% of the total seats reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together." Importantly, the SC clarified that the states cannot rely on the OBC population figure reflected in the Census, conducted by the Union government, for the purpose of determining the quantum of OBC quota in local body elections.

The Justice Khanwilkar-led bench said, "In terms of the constitutional amendment for insertion of Article 342A(3) in the Constitution, the state/UT is obliged to prepare a list of SEBCs which can be acted upon for providing reservation to OBCs including in elections to local governments. However, that list will be independent of the Census work undertaken by the Union government under the Census Act. The list to be prepared by States/UTs concerning the SEBCs, in terms of Article 342A(3) of the Constitution which came into force from August 19, 2021, would be independent of the Census to be carried out by the Union government."

It said, "The information and data available with the states can be furnished to the dedicated commission, which can examine the efficacy thereof, and take appropriate decision as may be warranted including submission of interim report to the state government making recommendations as may be necessary, which can be taken forward by the concerned states in accordance with law."

Article 342A(3) provided that "every State or Union territory may, by law, prepare and maintain, for its own purposes, a list of socially and educationally backward classes, entries in which may be different from the Central List." The list so available with the state, the SC said, would not by itself be the determining factor for quantifying OBC quota in panchayat polls.

It said, "This obviously would not override the triple test requirement, which has to be completed in terms of the decision of the SC in Vikas Krishnarao Gawli judgment of March 4, 2021, before providing for reservation of seats for OBCs in local bodies. The Commission may submit an interim report if so advised to the concerned authorities within two weeks from the receipt of information and data from the state government. We may not have understood to have expressed any opinion on the correctness of the information and data to be supplied by the states. It is for the Commission to examine the said data. This observation must also govern the dispensation in other states which intends to proceed with local government elections while providing reservations to the OBC category."

The bench said if there is a panchayat poll in future and the commission has not yet given any recommendation, or the state has not relied upon the recommendations of the commission, then there cannot be any reservation for the other backward classes in the local body elections. "If there is an election, it has to be as per the SC judgment laying down the triple test guidelines," it said. However, it clarified that the states can act upon the interim recommendations of the dedicated commission for determining the quantum of OBC quota in panchayat polls.

[edit] Medical colleges

[edit] SC upholds OBC quota/ 2022

Dhananjay Mahapatra, January 21, 2022: The Times of India

New Delhi: Settling the perennial merit vs quota debate while upholding reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the intensely competitive all-India quota (AIQ) medical seats, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that scores in entrance tests do not reflect the social, economic and cultural advantage that accrues to certain classes and contributes to their success in such examinations. 
Rejecting the challenge to the constitutional validity of 27% OBC quota in the soughtafter AIQ seats in MBBS and MD courses, a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and A S Bopanna said, “Merit can’t be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive exam which only provides formal equality of opportunity. ” “High scores in an exam are not a proxy for merit. Merit should be socially contextualised. . . as an instrument that advances social goods like equality. In such a context, reservation is not at odds with merit but furthers its distributive consequences,” the bench said.

Writing the judgment, Justice Chandrachud said, “Competitive exams assess basic current competency to allocate educational resources but are not reflective of excellence, capabilities and potential of an individual which are also shaped by lived experiences, subsequent training and individual character. Crucially, open competitive exams do not reflect the social, economic and cultural advantage that accrues to certain classes and contributes to their success in such exams. ”

The bench said the 10% EWS quota for undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses would also continue for the 2021-22 academic year, as judicial propriety would not permit the SC to pass an interim order staying the criteria for determination of the EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) category.

“It is a settled principle of law that in matters involving challenge to the constitutionality of a legislation or a rule, the court must be wary to pass an interim order, unless the court is convinced that the rules are prima facie arbitrary,” the bench said while scheduling the exercise for detailed scrutiny of the constitutional validity of EWS quota to the third week of March.

It said, “At this stage, without hearing all the interested parties on arguments such as (i) extent of judicial review of materials relied on for providing reservation under Article 15; (ii) the power of the states to determine EWS in view of the explanation to Article 15 and in view of an alternative criteria proposed by the committee formed by the government of Kerala; and (iii) the meaning of EWS — the identification of the poor or the poorest, it would be imper missible for us to form a prima facie opinion on the alleged arbitrariness of the criteria. ”

Importantly, the SC clarified that the Centre was not required to seek its permission before providing reservation in AIQ seats. “Therefore, providing reservation in the AIQ seats is a policy decision of the government. ”

Returning to the debate over merit vs quota, the bench rejected the argument that once an OBC candidate secures an undergraduate AIQ medical seat, he/she should not be entitled to again fall back on his backwardness to secure seat in the AIQ post-graduate medical seat, where merit alone should be the criteria.

[edit] Other Backward Classes' issues, State-wise

[edit] Tamil Nadu and Karnataka

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009

1-yr respite for TN, K’taka quota laws

Place OBC Population Data To Justify Quotas Exceeding 50% Ceiling, Says SC

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: Supreme Court on Tuesday gave one-year extension to Tamil Nadu and Karnataka laws providing quota over and above the 50% cap fixed by apex court judgments for admission and employment, but asked the governments to place quantifiable data about OBC population before the backward commissions to justify quotas exceeding the ceiling it laid down.

The court’s insistence that the two state governments back up their pitch for quotas far exceeding the 50% cap can lead to renewed pressure for including caste as a criterion in the ongoing census. More importantly, the order is interpreted to suggest that the court could consider relaxing the 50% ceiling it prescribed if the states were to support their demand by evidence of the size of the OBC population and their “social and educational backwardness” — the eligibility for quota.

SC introduced the 50% limit on reservations including those for SCs/STs in November 1992 in its verdict in the Indira Sawhney case where it upheld the implementation of Mandal Commission’s recommendation to reserve 27% of central jobs for OBCs.

There were subsequent judgments, including Ashoka Thakur, which upheld extension of 27% reservation in admissions to OBCs in central government educational institutes but reiterated that the quantum of quota could not exceed 50%.

However, both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, which had provided reservation in excess of 50% even prior to Indira Sawhney judgment, brought in legislations justifying the quantum on the ground that they were done prior to the 1992 judgment.

Tamil Nadu, which provides 69% reservation, went a step ahead and put the TN Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointment or Posts in Services under the State) Act, 1993, in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution, thus barring judicial scrutiny of the constitutional validity of the law. An identical law enacted by Karnataka in 1994 provided upto 73% reservation.

Both state laws providing for quota in excess of 50% cap were challenged before the SC and even contempt petitions were filed as they violated the Constitution bench’s Indira Sawhney judgment.

In its 2007 judgment in I R Cohello case, the SC ruled that judicial scrutiny of a 9th Schedule law was possible if it was shown that the legislation was violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.

In the light of this judgment, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia on Tuesday agreed to extend the life of these legislations, operating for more than 15 years, for another year, but with an important rider that the state governments would revisit these laws and produce quantifiable data to prove before state backward commissions the necessity of reservation in excess of 50%. While Tamil Nadu has a backward commission, Karnataka is yet to constitute one.

[edit] The Extremely Backward Classes of Bihar

The Times of India, Nov 09 2015

Subodh Ghildiyal

The Extremely Backward Classes of Bihar: History, numbers, the castes involved; Graphic courtesy: The Times of India, November 10, 2015

Backward of backwards gives Nitish forward push

Bihar 2015 marks the arrival of Extremely Backward Castes (EBCs) on the electoral stage, with BJP putting in unprecedented -but unsuccessful -effort to undo Nitish Kumar's decadelong outreach to them. EBCs are Mandal communities minus the dominant trio of Yadavs, Kurmis and some Bania groups. Their importance stems from their numerical strength -almost half of the OBCs and 22% of Bihar's population -making them a tempting target for political parties. Observers say the `backwards among the backwards' would be among the key target groups in future political battles. It marks a big leap for the group, if also an arduous journey to social independence. The pre-Mandal era saw EBCs forced to be dependent on upper castes. This was also before the dawn of backward resurgence when it was in conceivable for the marginalised groups to think of breaking free. The rise of Karpoori Thakur, a marginal backward, brought EBCs to notice, though without the present acronym. The Mandal era placed them in the wider OBC umbrella of social churn. For them, the only change was that Yadavs replaced the upper castes in terms of dominance. Nitish's rise as CM in 2005 turned the tide. Realising he had a weak social base and was still in the early years of consolidating his hold over OBCs, till now a trusted vote bank of Lalu Prasad, Nitish thought of pitting Yadavs against the rest. The division of OBC list into three groups of analogous communities -BCs, MBCs, EBCs -and allocating of backward reservation quota among them in proportion to their population was aimed at unshackling EBCs from their dominant brethren. As they began receiving quotas and welfare measures -till now cornered by a handful of stronger groups -EBCs came into their own as a distinct community, the process getting a fillip with Nitish's decision to grant them reservation in panchayats. Moving to trump Nitish in 2015 BJP fielded more EBC candidates and hoped that JD(U)'s alliance with RJD would make EBCs apprehensive of Yadav dominance. But Nitish was counting on their loyalty rooted in his authorship of targeted welfare and creation of a nascent elite through panchayat reservations.

In the end, EBCs appeared to have no grievance on development front. And Nitish's proven record appears to have assuaged their fears of return of Yadav dominance.

[edit] Superior courts' judgements

[edit] Backwardness, determination of

The Times of India

Mar 18 2015

Caste cannot be sole criterion for determining backwardness, says SC

Amit Choudhary

The Supreme Court said the government must devise new methods and yardsticks to determine backwardness of a community for conferring reservation and not grant OBC status solely on the basis of caste. It said reservation given to communities based on historical injustice and prejudice alone would result in diluting the social welfare protection which is ensured through reservations given to most deserving backward class citizens. It said a government could not blind itself to other forms of backwardness suffered by other communities.

“Owing to historical conditions, particularly in Hindu society, recognition of back wardness has been associated with caste. Though caste may be a prominent and distinguishing factor for easy determination of backwardness of a social group, this court has been routinely discouraging its identification solely on the basis of caste,“ a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton F Nariman said.

The court also asked why communities in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) list was increasing and why there were no exclusions from it despite perceptible all round development of the nation.

“The percentage of OBC population estimated at `not less than 52%' (in Indra Sawhney judgment popularly known as Mandal verdict) certainly must have gone up, as over the last two decades there has been only inclusions in the central and state OBC lists.heme,“ the bench said.

The apex court said the government must increase vigilance to discover emerging forms of backwardness and referred to its recent verdict recognizing the `third gender' as a backward community entitled to reservation.

“ Identification of these new emerging groups must engage the attention of the state and the constitutional power and duty must be concentrated to discover such groups rather than to enable groups of citizens to recover lost ground in claiming preference and benefits on the basis of historical prejudice,“ it said.

[edit] Panchayat elections

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009

SC upholds OBC quota in panchayat polls

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of reservation for SCs, STs, women and backward classes (OBCs) in panchayat elections but said quota in local self-government should be for a much shorter period than that for jobs and admissions to educational institutions.

It also upheld reservation of the posts of chairperson of panchayats in favour of SC, ST, women and OBC candidates in rotation.

However, in reserving seats in panchayat elections for SC, ST and OBC candidates, the quantum of quota cannot breach the 50% limit, ruled a five-judge constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran, D K Jain, P Sathasivam and J M Panchal.

“The upper ceiling of 50% vertical reservation in favour of SC/ST/OBCs should not be breached in the context of local self-government. Exceptions can only be made in order to safeguard the interests of STs in the matter of their representation in panchayats located in scheduled areas,” said the CJI, who authored the 70-page unanimous judgment.

Though the apex court upheld the reservation in local self-government, it did sound a caution for the legislature. “The nature and purpose of reservation in the context of local self-government is considerably different from that of higher education and public employment,” it said. Holding it to be distinct from the reservation scheme practiced in jobs and educational institutions, the Bench said the same logic could not be applied while furthering quota in local self-government.

“Even when made, they need not be for a period corresponding to the period of reservation for the purposes of Articles 15(4) and (16(4), but can be much shorter,” the apex court said.

[edit] 2007/SC Calls for more reliable data for IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, Central Universities.

The Times of India

New Regime Unlikely This Yr In IITs, IIMs

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN

New Delhi: 30 3 07 The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed UPA government’s decision to reserve 27% seats for OBCs in Central educational institutions, including top schools like IITs, IIMs and AIIMS, creating uncertainty whether the new quota can kick in during the 2007-2008 academic session.

The court justified throwing a spanner in the quota works by citing lack of authentic data on size of OBC population and extent of backwardness, as well as the Centre’s refusal to exclude the “creamy layer” (read rich and advanced among OBCs) from quotas. The court held that findings of the 1931 census — the last caste-based headcount — were antiquated and cannot be the basis for pegging quota size.

The bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and L S Panta, which was hearing a clutch of petitions filed by anti-quota groups like Youth For Equality, scheduled the next hearing for the third week of August by when admissions to Central institutions for the next academic year would be over.

The development, which threatens to set back implementation of the quota by at least one year, came as a blow to government. It is learnt to have decided to seek early revision so that OBCs can get admission pending the final verdict. The matter apparently came up during a discussion between the PM and HRD minister Arjun Singh.

The Congres leadership will discuss the issue at a core group meeting on Friday. Efforts are also on to build up an all-party consensus, with Arjun Singh calling up Bihar CM Nitish Kumar to sound him out. There are indications that ruling coalition partners would hold consultations among themselves, and later with other parties to present the court with a pro-quota consensus.

A meeting of state education ministers was being scheduled for the purpose. There was cross-party annoyance that the top court, which had in 1992 accepted 1931 census data as the basis for OBC job quota in Central services, has now found fault with the very same set of numbers.

But the court has kept the door ajar for lifting its stay if government can come up with a more credible estimate of OBC share of the population.

The Left and some other political outfits were quite forthright in disapproving of the judicial intervention. In contrast, Congres and BJP preferred a restrained tone, though the opposition party tried to score a few brownie points by blaming government for not doing its homework in court.

BACK ON THE BOIL?

THE VERDICT

SC stays 27% OBC quota in IITs, IIMs, AIIMS and Central Univs. Calls for more reliable data. But doesn’t strike down principle of caste-based reservation

THE IMPLICATIONS

May be tough to implement new quotas in coming academic year as next hearing is in late Aug, by when admissions will be over. As new quota regime has been passed by Parliament, ruling can set up another judiciary versus executive faceoff

WHAT’S NEXT?

Govt to approach court for early hearing. Will plead for review of order. Arjun Singh says govt feels court will get ‘convinced that the law is valid’. Talk of all-party meet, UPA allies likely to meet first

[edit] See also

Caste-based reservations, India (history)

Caste-based reservations, India (the results, statistics)

Jat community: 'reservations'/ quotas for

Maharashtra: Castes & Tribes, scheduled and backward

National Commission for Backward Classes

OBC (Other backward classes) politics: India

OBC (Other backward class/es) quota: India

Other Backward Classes (list): West Bengal

Other Backward Classes of Kerala (list)

Patel, Patidar

Scheduled and backward, castes & tribes: Bihar

Scheduled and backward, castes & tribes: Jammu & Kashmir

Scheduled and backward, castes & tribes: Maharashtra

Scheduled Castes in Tamil Nadu

Scheduled Castes of Kerala (list)

Sons of the soil/ local job-seekers: 'reservations'/ quotas for: India

The Scheduled Castes: statistics

Transgenders and the Indian law