A Historical Overview of OBC Reservations in India

Reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is one of the most defining features of social policy, yet its roots stretch back more than a century before it became national law. The story begins not in independent India’s Parliament but in a princely state, and it winds through commissions, constitutional debates, and one of the most turbulent political moments of the 1990s. Understanding this history helps explain why OBC reservation remains so central to political and social life today.

The colonial origins of backward class reservation 🔗

The idea of reserving seats for backward communities did not start with the Constitution. It first took concrete shape in 1902 in the princely state of Kolhapur, under the rule of Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj. On 26 July 1902, he issued a landmark order reserving 50% of government jobs for backward classes in his state. This is widely regarded as one of the earliest affirmative action programmes anywhere in the world.

What made the order so radical was its context. At the time, the administration of Kolhapur was dominated overwhelmingly by Brahmins, who held the vast majority of senior posts. Shahu Maharaj recognised that a handful of dominant castes had monopolised education and government employment, leaving most communities entirely excluded. His proclamation defined “backward classes” broadly as all groups other than Brahmins, Prabhus, Shenvis, Parsis, and other advanced classes.

The decision faced fierce resistance from conservative quarters. Even Lokmanya Tilak criticised the move sharply in his newspaper editorials. But Shahu Maharaj held firm, ensuring posts went to candidates from backward communities, and supporting the education needed to qualify them. This same reformer later financially supported B. R. Ambedkar, and his 1902 order is often cited as an early inspiration for the constitutional philosophy of reservation that followed.

Constitutional foundations after independence 🔗

When India adopted its Constitution, the framers built in provisions for affirmative action. Articles 15 and 16 allowed the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, alongside the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Crucially, Article 340 empowered the President to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes and recommend steps for their advancement.

Here lies an important distinction. The Constitution clearly identified SCs and STs through schedules, but it left “other backward classes” undefined. There was no ready list of who qualified as an OBC. This gap set the stage for decades of commissions, surveys, and political contestation over who counted as backward and how much support they deserved.

The Kaka Kalelkar Commission of 1953 🔗

The first serious attempt to define and address OBCs at the national level came through the First Backward Classes Commission. Set up by a presidential order on 29 January 1953 under the chairmanship of Kaka Kalelkar, it is commonly known as the Kalelkar Commission. Its mandate flowed directly from Article 340.

What the commission found 🔗

The commission spent two years on its work and submitted its report in 1955. It prepared a list of 2,399 castes and communities it considered backward, and it estimated that around 70% of the population could be classified as backward. It treated caste as the central criterion for identifying backwardness, alongside factors like occupation and literacy.

On reservations, the commission proposed substantial quotas in government services and recommended as much as 70% reservation in technical and professional educational institutions for qualified backward class students. It also suggested creating a separate ministry for backward class welfare.

Why it failed to lead anywhere 🔗

Despite its detailed work, the Kalelkar Commission’s recommendations were never implemented. In an unusual turn, the chairman himself developed reservations about the report. In his forwarding letter to the President, Kaka Kalelkar expressed doubts about using caste as the basis for backwardness, fearing it would deepen caste divisions rather than dissolve them. The government, too, was unconvinced. It argued the commission had not applied objective criteria such as income and literacy, and that recognising castes explicitly might perpetuate social fragmentation. The report was effectively shelved, and for years the question of OBC reservation was left to individual states to handle in their own ways.

The Mandal Commission of 1979 🔗

The national question returned in 1979. The Janata Party government under Prime Minister Morarji Desai set up the Second Backward Classes Commission on 1 January 1979, again under Article 340. It was chaired by B. P. Mandal, a former Chief Minister of Bihar, which is why it is universally known as the Mandal Commission.

The key recommendations 🔗

The Mandal Commission submitted its report in December 1980. Its findings were striking. It estimated that OBCs made up around 52% of India’s population and classified over a thousand communities as socially and educationally backward. Its central recommendation was a 27% reservation for OBCs in central government services and public sector undertakings.

The logic behind the 27% figure was rooted in the existing legal framework. SCs and STs already enjoyed 22.5% reservation. Adding 27% for OBCs would bring the total to 49.5%, just under the informal 50% ceiling that courts had treated as a limit. The commission also recommended extending reservation to educational institutions and called for periodic review of the backward classes list.

A decade in cold storage 🔗

Like the Kalelkar report before it, the Mandal Commission report was not acted upon immediately. For nearly ten years it remained on the shelf, caught in political hesitation. Successive governments were wary of the upheaval that implementing such a sweeping policy might trigger.

The 1990 implementation and its aftermath 🔗

The turning point came in 1990. On 7 August 1990, Prime Minister V. P. Singh, heading the National Front minority government, announced in Parliament that the government would implement the Mandal Commission’s job reservation recommendation. An Office Memorandum dated 13 August 1990 operationalised the 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs.

Protests and political turmoil 🔗

The announcement set off some of the most intense social unrest of the era. Anti-reservation protests erupted across north Indian universities. In September 1990, a Delhi University student, Rajiv Goswami, attempted self-immolation in protest, an image that came to symbolise the agitation. Tragically, many young people died in similar acts across the country during this period.

The political consequences were severe. The Mandal agitation, combined with the simultaneous Ram Rath Yatra led by L. K. Advani, destabilised national politics. The V. P. Singh government fell in November 1990. Yet despite the turmoil, the policy itself endured and reshaped Indian politics permanently. Political scientists often describe the Mandal moment as a “second democratic upsurge” because it brought backward class assertion to the centre of electoral life.

The Indra Sawhney case of 1992 🔗

The implementation was promptly challenged in the Supreme Court. The result was the landmark judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, popularly called the Mandal Commission case. A nine-judge bench delivered its verdict on 16 November 1992 by a 6:3 majority.

The Court largely upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs, accepting that caste could serve as a valid starting point for identifying backwardness. But it added important conditions. It held that total reservations should not exceed 50% except in extraordinary circumstances. It introduced the concept of the creamy layer, meaning that the more affluent and advanced members within OBCs were to be excluded from reservation benefits so that the truly disadvantaged could gain. The Court also ruled against reservation in promotions, a position later modified through constitutional amendments. Following the judgment, the National Commission for Backward Classes was established in 1993 to oversee the identification and welfare of OBCs.

Extending reservation to education in 2006 🔗

The Mandal implementation covered jobs, but it did not initially extend to premier central educational institutions. That gap was addressed years later. The 93rd Constitutional Amendment inserted Article 15(5), empowering the State to make special provisions for backward classes in admissions to educational institutions.

Following this, Parliament enacted the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, which provided 27% reservation for OBCs in central government-run institutions such as the IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, and central universities. This expansion too was challenged, and in the Ashoka Kumar Thakur case the Supreme Court upheld the measure while reaffirming the creamy layer principle for OBCs. With this, OBC reservation came to span both employment and higher education at the national level.

Why this history matters 🔗

The journey from Kolhapur in 1902 to the classrooms of central universities reveals a consistent thread: the recognition that formal equality alone could not undo centuries of caste-based exclusion. Each stage built on the last. Shahu Maharaj demonstrated that affirmative action was possible. The Constitution gave it a legal foundation. The Kalelkar and Mandal Commissions wrestled with the difficult task of defining backwardness. And the courts shaped the limits within which the policy operates today.

This history also explains why reservation remains so contested. Debates over the creamy layer, the 50% ceiling, caste census data, and the balance between social justice and merit all trace directly back to the questions these commissions and judgments first raised.

What do you think? Do the conditions the Supreme Court attached to OBC reservation, such as the creamy layer and the 50% ceiling, strike the right balance between social justice and individual merit? And given that the criteria for identifying backwardness have been debated since 1953, should backwardness today be measured primarily by caste, by economic status, or by some combination of both?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahu_of_Kolhapur
2. https://www.asian-voice.com/Opinion/Columnists/Hari-Desai/Shahu-Chhatrapati,-A-reformist-Rajarshi-of-Kolhapur
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalelkar_Commission
4. https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/kaka-kalelkar-commission-useful-notes/35172
5. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/mandal-commission/
6. https://www.gktoday.in/indira-sawhney-judgement/
7. https://anantamias.com/mandal-commission/
8. https://chahalacademy.com/mandal-commission
9. https://www.lekhanews.in/judgment/indra-sawhney-v-union-of-india-mandal/
10. https://lawbhoomi.com/93rd-constitutional-amendment-act-2005/