Who are the BCs? Is 42% Reservation Feasible?

T. Chiranjeevulu Retired IAS Officer 

The Indian Constitution defined "Backward Classes" (BCs) not as "backward castes" but as "backward classes," thereby doing irreparable injustice to the backward castes. According to Article 16(4), backward classes include Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Similarly, under Article 15(4), socially and educationally backward classes are defined as BCs. While the Constitution mentions that reservations can be provided to socially and educationally backward classes, it failed to explicitly define who constitutes these "backward classes" or the criteria for identifying them. This ambiguity delayed social justice for BCs for decades, leading to increased judicial intervention that often resulted in severe injustice to BCs. In contrast, the same Constitution clearly defined SCs and STs.

In reality, the fourth varna of the traditional Hindu social system—the Shudras of yore—are the BCs of today. BCs are not a homogeneous group; they encompass productive castes, service castes, occupational castes, nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes, and dependent castes. These groups do not share a uniform social, political, or economic status. By defining BCs as "backward classes" rather than "backward castes," the Constitution created decades of legal and political hurdles regarding their identification and the implementation of their rights.

In Telangana, under G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 09-09-2020, 130 castes are categorized into groups BC-A, BC-B, BC-C, BC-D, and BC-E. While the Central OBC list contains over 2,633 castes, estimates suggest that when combining state lists across India, there are nearly 5,000 BC castes.

Article 340 of the Constitution empowers the President to appoint a commission to examine the conditions of backward classes and recommend measures for their advancement in education, employment, and socio-economic spheres. Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, under pressure from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, appointed the First Backward Classes Commission in 1953 under the chairmanship of Kaka Kalelkar. This commission identified 2,399 castes as backward and submitted its report in 1955. However, Nehru rejected the report without implementing it or even introducing it in Parliament. Finally, in 1961, he issued a memorandum stating that states should identify BCs and take necessary actions, suggesting identification based primarily on economic criteria.

Later, during the Janata Party era, under pressure from Yadav leaders like Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Sharad Yadav, and Charan Singh, the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) was established in 1977. Based on 11 social, educational, and economic indicators, this commission identified 3,743 castes as backward. However, the identification of BCs based solely on caste faced numerous legal challenges in courts. In Telangana, the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down two G.O.s from the 1960s and 70s (G.O. 1886 dated 21-06-1963 and G.O. 1880 dated 29-07-1966). Even G.O. 1793 dated 23-09-1970, based on the Anantharaman Commission's recommendations, was initially struck down by the High Court. However, in January 1972, the Supreme Court upheld its legality, and it has been in force since then. The Supreme Court clarified that "caste is also a social class," thereby granting legal validity to BC reservations.

The historic Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992, reviewing the Mandal Commission Report, marked a turning point for BC reservations. In this ruling, the Supreme Court accepted caste as the primary criterion for social backwardness. Simultaneously, it introduced the concept of a 50% ceiling on total reservations.

Subsequently, following the Indra Sawhney directives, the National Commission for Backward Classes Act was enacted in 1993 under Article 340. In 2018, this act was repealed, and through the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, Article 338B was inserted to establish the National Commission for Backward Classes as a constitutional body with full authority. Regarding the definition of BCs, Article 366(26C) was added via the 102nd Amendment. It defines "socially and educationally backward classes" as those listed under Article 342A. Furthermore, Articles 342A(1) and 342A(2) allow the Central Government to maintain its own list of BCs, while Article 342A(3) allows States to maintain their own lists. Thus, a constitutional definition of "Who are the BCs?" has finally been established.

Due to the Constitution's initial lack of clarity on defining backward classes, social justice was delayed for many years. Central government reservations for OBCs in public employment began only in 1993, meaning BCs were excluded from millions of jobs created in the first 46 years of independent India. Even today, BC representation in central government jobs does not exceed 22%. Similarly, it took 25 to 30 years for reservations to be implemented in state governments. Consequently, BCs missed out on the millions of jobs created in the early years of independence, leading to their current distressed state.

Can the 50% Ceiling be Broken?

Reservation provisions in the Constitution fall under Fundamental Rights. Article 16(4) mandates reservations for classes lacking adequate representation but does not specify a percentage. Courts exploited this loophole to interpret that reservations should not exceed 50%. The first instance was the 1961 Balaji vs. State of Mysore case, where the court ruled that admissions in educational institutions should not exceed 50%, allocating the remainder to SCs/STs based on population and leaving only a fraction for BCs. This interpretation was used by various courts to block BC reservations exceeding 50% in eight states. In united Andhra Pradesh, even when a G.O. was issued in 1986 granting 44% reservation to BCs, the High Court struck it down. Consequently, both the Anantharaman Commission (recommending 30%) and the Mandal Commission (recommending 27%) kept their proposals within the 50% limit. The courts, by interpreting non-existent constitutional limits, complicated the issue further. However, the 50% limit is not in the Constitution; it is purely a judicial interpretation. Moreover, Paragraph 830 of the Indra Sawhney judgment explicitly stated that the 50% limit could be exceeded in special circumstances.

Telangana possesses a unique socio-historical background. The combined population of SCs, STs, and BCs in the state is nearly 90%. Simultaneously, poverty and social backwardness are rampant. Centuries of feudal and zamindari systems have severely oppressed weaker sections. Therefore, the need for reservations to ensure social justice, equal opportunities, and representation is even greater in Telangana. Considering the socio-economic and educational progress of these weaker sections, there are strong historical and social grounds to break the 50% ceiling.

Is 42% Reservation Feasible in Telangana?

According to the State Government's social survey, the BC population in Telangana is over 56%, yet they currently receive only 29% reservation. This is inadequate representation. Hence, in the Kamareddy Declaration, the Congress Party promised 42% reservation upon coming to power. In 2025, the State Assembly passed a bill for 42% BC reservation and sent it to the Centre, but it remains pending.

In reality, these figures are not based on exact population proportion. Granting 42% to a 56.33% population is insufficient. The remaining 10% gap could theoretically be addressed by the 10% EWS quota for economically weaker sections among forward castes. However, giving only 42% to a 56% BC population is not true social justice.

Tamil Nadu stands as a prime example of social justice. Through a special law, it implemented 69% reservation, which was subsequently placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, granting it legal protection. Even today, this law remains in effect.

However, in the 2007 I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu judgment (also known as the Coelho case), the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling. It clarified that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are not immune to judicial review; if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution, courts can examine them. Although around 284 laws have been placed in the Ninth Schedule, none have been struck down by the Supreme Court so far. Furthermore, in the 2022 Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India case regarding EWS reservations, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that the 50% ceiling is not part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This echoes the Coelho judgment: judicial review applies only when fundamental constitutional principles are violated. Therefore, including the proposed 42% reservation bill for Telangana in the Ninth Schedule would pose no constitutional threat; rather, it would provide stronger constitutional protection.

The primary obstacle here is a lack of political will. Since all major political parties are dominated by upper castes, they have little interest in the genuine empowerment of BCs. They merely delay with announcements, G.O.s, and committees. Even BC leaders within these parties are unable to speak openly against their own parties. Dominant-caste media does not highlight our issues.

Therefore, the responsibility to carry this struggle forward lies with self-aware students, autonomous BC organizations, intellectuals, writers, poets, artists, and the youth. History tells us that rights are not won without a movement. The First Constitutional Amendment in 1951 itself was a result of the pressure from Periyar's movement in Tamil Nadu. That same spirit of movement is needed in Telangana.

In Telangana, SCs, STs, and BCs together constitute about 90% of the population. Yet, their representation in power, education, employment, wealth, media, and the judiciary remains critically low. Thus, the demand for 42% BC reservation is not merely a political demand; it is a historical struggle for social justice.

These rights will not be granted voluntarily. They must be won through a people's movement. Only if BCs, SCs, and STs unite and struggle will political parties and governments yield. We must bring awareness to every village, every college, and every profession. Telangana society needs to build another mass movement to achieve the 42% reservation demand. Only then will governments be forced to fulfill this demand.