ANALYSIS: "Other Backward Classes" (OBC) is not explicitly defined in the Indian Constitution

The term "Other Backward Classes" (OBC) is not explicitly defined in the Indian Constitution, leading to ambiguity. Various articles, such as Articles 15 and 16, refer to different classifications like "socially and educationally backward classes" without a unified definition

The National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, provides some clarity by allowing the central government to specify OBCs in official lists, but the lack of a clear constitutional definition remains a challenge for consistent application.

This complexity has resulted in various judicial interpretations and administrative practices over time

Supreme Court judgments have significantly shaped the definition and recognition of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in India. The landmark Indira Sawhney case (1992) established that OBC reservations aim to rectify historical discrimination, asserting that no group can be deemed backward solely based on religion or other identities

More recently, the Maratha judgment clarified that states lost the power to identify OBCs under the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, centralizing this authority with the Union government

 These rulings underscore the evolving legal landscape surrounding OBC classifications and reservations, impacting policy and implementation.

The Maratha judgment interpreted "social and educational backwardness" by emphasizing that a community must demonstrate actual backwardness based on objective criteria. The Supreme Court found that the Maratha community did not qualify as socially backward, citing evidence that they are economically advanced and have access to educational opportunities, which contradicts the requirements set in the Indira Sawhney case. The Court reinforced that reservations should serve social justice objectives, not merely political favors, and reiterated the necessity of adhering to established criteria for determining backwardness, thus rejecting the Maratha reservation law as unconstitutional

The Maratha judgment considered several specific factors when defining "social and educational backwardness":

1. Economic Status: The court evaluated the economic conditions of the Maratha community, noting their significant representation in government jobs and educational institutions, which indicated a lack of substantial economic disadvantage.
2. Educational Access: The judgment scrutinized the educational achievements of the Marathas, finding that they did not exhibit the educational deficits typically associated with backward classes.
3. Social Indicators: The court examined social practices within the Maratha community, including issues like child marriage and the purdah system, but concluded that these did not sufficiently demonstrate social backwardness given their overall societal status and influence in Maharashtra.
4. Statistical Evidence: The findings from the Gaikwad Commission, which highlighted issues like farmer suicides and economic distress, were deemed insufficient to classify the community as socially and educationally backward because such issues were linked to broader agrarian crises rather than inherent backwardness

The Indira Sawhney judgment (1992) and the Maratha judgment (2021) differ significantly in their implications for reservation policies in India:

1. Criteria for Backwardness:
   • Indira Sawhney established that a group must demonstrate "social and educational backwardness" to qualify for reservations, emphasizing the need for objective evaluation
     .
   • In contrast, the Maratha judgment ruled that the Maratha community did not meet these criteria, asserting they are not socially and educationally backward
     .
2. 50% Reservation Cap:
   • The Indira Sawhney ruling set a 50% cap on reservations, allowing exceptions only in "extraordinary circumstances" to maintain administrative efficiency
     .
   • The Maratha judgment upheld this cap, declaring that the Maharashtra law providing 16% reservation for Marathas was unconstitutional as it exceeded this limit without valid justification
     
     
3. Authority to Identify OBCs:
• The Indira Sawhney case did not address state powers explicitly but allowed for state-specific lists of OBCs.
• The Maratha judgment, however, interpreted the 102nd Constitutional Amendment to centralize the authority to identify OBCs with the Union government, limiting state powers
  
  

The Maratha judgment considered several key economic factors when evaluating the community's claim to "social and educational backwardness":

1. Economic Dominance: The court noted that the Maratha community has been economically and politically dominant in Maharashtra for decades, questioning the rationale behind labeling them as backward without significant changes in circumstances 
   
   
2. Employment Representation: Evidence showed that Marathas held substantial positions in government jobs, with around 19% representation in state employment, which undermined claims of inadequate representation 
   
   
3. Agrarian Crisis Impact: While the judgment acknowledged the agrarian crisis affecting farmers, it argued that this was a broader issue rather than indicative of the Maratha community's social backwardness 
   
   
4. Income Levels: The court reviewed data indicating that Marathas had relatively high per capita incomes compared to other groups, further challenging their classification as economically disadvantaged