The Mandal Commission and OBC Reservations | CBSE Class 12 Political Science Notes

Part of: Recent Developments in Indian Politics (CBSE Class 12 Political Science, Politics in India since Independence, Chapter 8). This page goes deeper into one section of that chapter, the political rise of the Other Backward Classes. It follows OBC reservation from the Constitution through two national commissions and the orders of 1990 and 1991 to the Supreme Court's ruling of 1992.

Who are the Other Backward Classes in the Constitution's terms?

The Constitution speaks of "socially and educationally backward classes". NCERT calls Other Backward Classes (OBCs) an administrative category: groups other than the SCs and STs that are behind socially and in education.

• Article 16(4), in force from 1950, lets the State reserve posts for any backward class not adequately represented in its services.
• Article 15(4), added by the First Amendment in 1951, allows special provisions for their advancement.
• Article 340 lets the President appoint a commission to study their conditions. Its report goes to Parliament with a note on the action taken.

Source: "The President may by order appoint a Commission ... to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India..." (Article 340(1), Constitution of India, in force from 26 January 1950)

What it shows: finding these classes was left to a commission, and both national inquiries were appointed under this article.

SCs and STs are named in lists notified by the President under Articles 341 and 342, and have reserved seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. The original Constitution gave the backward classes no reserved seats and no list with the force of Articles 341 and 342.

NCERT records that southern states had OBC reservations from the 1960s or even before, unlike north Indian states. Under the Janata government of 1977 to 1979, Bihar's Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur introduced them there.

What became of the First Backward Classes Commission?

The first inquiry under Article 340 was appointed on 29 January 1953, with Kaka Kalelkar as chairman. It reported on 30 March 1955 and listed 2,399 backward castes or communities, marking 837 of them as "most backward".

The report was not put into effect. The Union government's memorandum of action, placed before Parliament on 3 September 1956, found fault with some of its tests. It also warned that naming castes as backward might keep caste distinctions alive.

The Supreme Court later recorded more. In his letter forwarding the report, Kalelkar argued that caste-based remedies would not serve society. And on 14 August 1961 the Union told the states that they could choose their own criteria, and that it preferred economic tests to caste.

How did the Mandal Commission measure backwardness?

NCERT says the central government appointed the second commission in 1978; the Supreme Court records that a Presidential Order set it up on 1 January 1979. Officially the Second Backward Classes Commission, it is named after its chairman, B. P. Mandal, a socialist who had briefly been Chief Minister of Bihar in 1968.

It reported on 31 December 1980, after the Janata government had fallen. It treated backward classes as backward castes and scored each caste on 11 indicators:

1. Social (four, 3 points each): such as dependence on manual labour and early marriage.
2. Educational (three, 2 points each): children out of school, dropouts, and the share of matriculates.
3. Economic (four, 1 point each): such as family assets, kutcha houses and distance to drinking water.
4. Cut-off: a caste scoring 11 or more of the 22 points counted as socially and educationally backward.

The result was an all-India list of 3,743 castes. The Commission estimated in 1980 that OBCs, not counting SCs and STs, formed nearly 52% of the whole population. This was an estimate, not a count: it rested on the caste figures of the 1931 Census, the last to count all castes.

What did the Mandal Commission recommend, and why 27%?

The Commission did not ask for a share equal to its estimate of nearly 52%. As the Supreme Court later recorded, it noted that the Court's decisions limited total reservation to 50%. SCs and STs already had 22.5%, so it recommended 27% for OBCs, keeping the total just under the limit.

NCERT notes that the 27% was meant for government jobs and for seats in educational institutions. The Commission also proposed wider measures, such as land reform. One opinion in Indra Sawhney records its suggestion that the whole scheme be reviewed after 20 years.

The report was laid before Parliament and discussed in 1982 and 1983, when ministers spoke on it. No order to carry it out followed until 1990.

How was the Mandal report put into effect in 1990 and 1991?

On 7 August 1990, Prime Minister V. P. Singh of the National Front government told the Lok Sabha that part of the report would be implemented. An Office Memorandum followed on 13 August 1990, naming social justice under the Constitution as its aim.

Source: "27% of the vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of India shall be reserved for SEBC." (Office Memorandum of 13 August 1990, clause (i))

What it shows: the order dealt with Union government posts, not education, and used the Commission's figure, not its population estimate.

OBCs selected on merit in open competition would not count against the 27%, and the first list held castes found in both the Mandal and state lists.

How did the country react?

The Supreme Court's judgment records widespread protest in some northern states, damage to property, and the deaths of some young people by self-immolation. Writ petitions challenged the order, and the Court stayed it. NCERT calls this dispute between supporters and opponents the "Mandal issue".

What changed in 1991?

After the 1991 election, the Congress government of P. V. Narasimha Rao issued a second memorandum on 25 September 1991. It gave poorer OBCs preference within the 27%, and reserved a further 10% for other "economically backward sections" not covered by any existing reservation scheme.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India?

A nine-judge bench decided Indra Sawhney v. Union of India on 16 November 1992, by six to three. Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy wrote the lead opinion, joined by Chief Justice M. H. Kania and two others; Justices S. Ratnavel Pandian and P. B. Sawant agreed separately. The majority held:

1. A caste can be, and often is, a social class in India, but a backward class cannot be identified by economic criteria alone.
2. The 1990 memorandum is valid, provided the socially advanced members, the "creamy layer", are excluded.
3. Reservations under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary situations.
4. Article 16(4) does not allow reservation in promotions; existing promotion quotas could run for five more years.
5. Within four months, the government had to define the creamy layer and set up a permanent body to hear requests for inclusion.

Justices T. K. Thommen, Kuldip Singh and R. M. Sahai dissented in separate opinions. Justice Sahai's dissent held that a backward class under Article 16(4) cannot be read as a backward caste, and would have declared both orders unenforceable.

What followed the judgment?

Both directions were met in 1993. The National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, dated 2 April 1993, set up a body to examine requests to add classes to the central lists. A memorandum of 8 September 1993 defined the creamy layer; one test excluded children of people earning Rs 1 lakh or more a year for three years running.

• The 93rd Amendment (2005) added Article 15(5), allowing special provisions for admission to educational institutions, including private ones, but not minority institutions.
• A central Act of 2006 reserved 27% of seats in central educational institutions for OBCs. The Supreme Court upheld it on 10 April 2008, with the creamy layer excluded.
• The 102nd Amendment (2018) added Article 338B, making the Commission a constitutional body. The 1993 Act was repealed that year.

What political effects does NCERT describe?

NCERT counts the Mandal issue among five developments at the end of the 1980s that shaped national politics.

In NCERT's account, the debate of 1990 left many in OBC communities more conscious of a common identity, which helped leaders who wished to organise them. Several parties then sought better chances for OBCs in education and jobs, and a larger share of power.

Their case, as NCERT reports it, was that so large a part of society deserved fair representation. NCERT notes that parties differed over how the decision was carried out, but that all major parties now support OBC reservation. In many regions, it adds, Dalit and OBC politics have grown separately, often as rivals. It also asks the student whether the gains will reach all these communities or stay with a few powerful castes and families.

Timeline: how did OBC reservation develop from 1950 to 2018?

Sources: where do these facts come from?

• NCERT, Politics in India since Independence (Class 12), Chapter 8, reprint 2026-27: the Janata years 1977 to 1979, the Commission (1978, 1980), B. P. Mandal (1968), the Congress return in 1991.
• CBSE, Political Science syllabus 2026-27, unit 8(c): "Mandal Implemented", "Political Fallouts".
• Constitution of India: Articles 15, 16(4) and 340 to 342, in force 26 January 1950; Article 15(4) added in 1951 and Article 338B in 2018.
• Supreme Court, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 16 November 1992 (indiankanoon.org): the 1931 Census, the 2,399 and 3,743 castes, the 11 indicators, and events of 1953, 1955, 1956, 1961, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1990 and 1991.
• National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, 2 April 1993, repealed in 2018.
• Department of Personnel memorandum of 8 September 1993, reproduced in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (10 April 2008).
• Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005; Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006; Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018; Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019.
• Supreme Court, Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, 10 April 2008, five judges (indiankanoon.org): section 3 of the 2006 Act and its 27% upheld, with the creamy layer excluded.
• Joseph W. Elder, "Mandal Commission Report", Encyclopedia of India, 2006: the Janata government's announcement of 1978.
• V. Krishna Ananth, The Polis Project, 7 August 2021: the 837 "most backward" castes, 7 August 1990.
• Supreme Court, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 16 November 1992, opinions of all nine judges: the six to three split, the concurrences of Justices Pandian and Sawant, and the dissents of Justices Thommen, Kuldip Singh and Sahai.

Glossary

• Other Backward Classes (OBCs): the administrative name for socially and educationally backward groups other than the SCs and STs.
• Socially and educationally backward classes: the Constitution's phrase in Articles 15(4) and 340 for the groups the OBC category covers.
• Backward Classes Commission: a body appointed by the President under Article 340 to study the conditions of backward classes and suggest remedies.
• Office Memorandum: a written executive order of a government department; the OBC orders of 1990 and 1991 took this form.
• Creamy layer: the socially advanced members of a backward class, whom Indra Sawhney required to be left out of OBC reservation.
• Fifty per cent rule: the rule, restated by the Supreme Court in 1992, that reservations under Article 16(4) should not exceed half, save in extraordinary situations.
• Mandal issue: NCERT's name for the dispute between supporters and opponents of OBC reservation after the decision of 1990.

Common errors and misconceptions

• Misconception: The V. P. Singh government set up the Mandal Commission. Correct: The Janata government announced it in 1978 and set it up in 1979; V. P. Singh's government implemented part of its report in 1990.
• Misconception: The 27% matches the OBC share of the population. Correct: The Commission estimated nearly 52%, but chose 27% so that, with 22.5% for SCs and STs, the total stayed under 50%.
• Misconception: The 52% figure is a census count. Correct: It was the Commission's estimate in 1980, built on the caste figures of the 1931 Census.
• Misconception: Indra Sawhney struck down OBC reservation. Correct: The majority upheld the 27%, with the creamy layer excluded; it held the 10% clause of 1991 invalid.
• Misconception: Today's 10% for economically weaker sections comes from the 1991 order. Correct: That clause was held invalid in 1992; the present 10% rests on the 103rd Amendment of 2019.

Exam-style questions with model answers

Q1. Under which article were both Backward Classes Commissions appointed? (a) Article 15(4) (b) Article 16(4) (c) Article 340 (d) Article 342 [1 mark]

(c) Article 340. It lets the President appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes.

Q2. State any two recommendations of the Mandal Commission. [2 marks]

1. Reserve 27% of government jobs and of seats in educational institutions for OBCs, keeping total reservation under 50%.
2. Take wider steps, such as land reform, to improve the condition of the backward classes.

Q3. Explain any four points decided by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). [4 marks]

1. It upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs in Union posts made by the memorandum of 13 August 1990.
2. It held that the creamy layer, the socially advanced members of the OBCs, must be excluded.
3. It held that reservations should not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary situations.
4. It held that Article 16(4) does not allow reservation in promotions.

Q4. Trace the course of OBC reservation in central government jobs from the Mandal Commission's report to the Supreme Court's ruling of 1992. [6 marks]

1. The Commission reported on 31 December 1980 and recommended 27% for OBCs, citing the 50% limit.
2. Parliament discussed it in 1982 and 1983, but no order was issued.
3. On 7 August 1990 V. P. Singh announced implementation; the memorandum of 13 August 1990 reserved 27% of Union posts.
4. Protests followed in some northern states, petitions were filed, and the Supreme Court stayed the order.
5. The memorandum of 25 September 1991 added preference for poorer OBCs and a 10% economic quota.
6. On 16 November 1992 a nine-judge bench upheld the 27% without the creamy layer and struck down the 10% clause.

Key takeaways

• The Constitution speaks of "socially and educationally backward classes" in Articles 15(4) and 340; OBC is the administrative name for these groups.
• The Kalelkar Commission reported in 1955 with 2,399 castes, but the Union did not act on it and in 1961 preferred economic tests.
• The Mandal Commission, set up in 1979, scored castes on 11 indicators, listed 3,743 castes and estimated OBCs at nearly 52%.
• It recommended 27%, not 52%, because the Supreme Court's decisions limited total reservation to 50% and SCs and STs had 22.5%.
• The memorandum of 13 August 1990 reserved 27% of Union posts; protests followed, and a 1991 memorandum added a 10% economic quota.
• Indra Sawhney (1992) upheld the 27%, excluded the creamy layer, restated the 50% rule, barred quotas in promotions and struck down the 10% clause.

Test yourself

Who chaired the Second Backward Classes Commission?

B. P. Mandal, a socialist from Bihar who had briefly been the state's Chief Minister in 1968.

How did the Mandal Commission decide which castes were backward?

It scored each caste on 11 social, educational and economic indicators worth 22 points; 11 or more meant backward.

When did the Mandal Commission submit its report?

On 31 December 1980, after the Janata government that set it up had fallen.

What did the Office Memorandum of 13 August 1990 provide?

It reserved 27% of vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of India for OBCs.

What is the creamy layer?

The socially advanced members of a backward class, whom the Supreme Court in 1992 required to be kept out of OBC reservation.

Which article made the National Commission for Backward Classes a constitutional body?

Article 338B, added by the 102nd Amendment in 2018; the Commission was first set up under an Act of 1993.