If the Mandal Commission was a historic turning point in India's fight for social justice for backward classes, the Justice G. Rohini Commission was an attempt to answer the question: are the reservation benefits going to OBCs after Mandal reaching all castes equally? Between these two commissions lies nearly three and a half decades of socio-political journey.
From Mandal to Rohini
Under Article 340 of the Indian Constitution, commissions may be set up to study the condition of socially and educationally backward classes. In this context, the Second Backward Classes Commission was formed in 1979 under the chairmanship of B.P. Mandal. Based on the Mandal Commission's report, the decision to provide 27% reservation to OBCs in central government jobs was taken in 1990.
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional questions related to this policy in the Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India case in 1992. While upholding OBC reservation, the Supreme Court made clear that the "creamy layer" — those who had become socially advanced — should be excluded from reservation benefits. The same judgment clarified that sub-categorizing backward classes into subgroups such as "backward" and "more backward" was not legally impossible, and that there was a constitutional path for sub-categorization. Earlier, in the Balaji vs. State of Mysore case (1961), it had been ruled that sub-categorization of OBCs was not valid under Article 15(4).
In the following decades, the question grew stronger that reservation benefits within OBCs were disproportionately reaching only a few castes.
Why Was the Rohini Commission Needed?
The reason given by the central government itself for this is very important. In August 2017, the Union Cabinet decided to set up a commission under Article 340 to examine sub-categorization of OBCs. The commission was formed on October 2, 2017, under the chairmanship of Justice G. Rohini.
The commission was primarily tasked with examining three matters:
- Are reservation benefits among OBCs being distributed equally?
- What criteria should be used to scientifically sub-categorize OBCs?
- How to correct castes, sub-castes, synonyms, spelling errors, duplications, and ambiguities in the central OBC list?
Later, in 2020, correcting errors, duplications, and ambiguities in the central OBC list was officially added as a fourth term of reference. (Indian Express)
The Inequality the Commission Brought to Light
In 2018, the Rohini Commission examined data on about 1.3 lakh central government jobs, as well as admissions granted to OBCs in central higher education institutions.
The analysis revealed something extremely critical:
97% of OBC reservation benefits went to just 25% of OBC castes.
Moreover, about 24.95% of the benefits went to just 10 OBC groups alone. The commission's analysis revealed that around 983 OBC groups had no representation at all in jobs or educational institutions, while another 994 groups together had only 2.68% representation. (Hindustan Times)
This conveys an important message:
"27% reservation exists" is one thing; "that 27% benefit is reaching all sections within OBCs" is another thing entirely.
This is why the Rohini Commission became necessary.
What Were the Commission's Recommendations?
The Rohini Commission submitted its report to the President on July 31, 2023. The central government only officially announced that the report had been submitted; the full report was not made public. (Press Information Bureau)
However, according to details that have emerged through various credible reports and studies on the commission, it appears that a model was considered which would divide the more than 2,600 castes in the central OBC list into four sub-categories, allocating different shares within the existing 27% quota.
According to the widely circulated model, the commission's study proceeded from the observation that among the more than 2,600 castes in the OBC list, only a few castes were receiving a disproportionate share of reservation benefits. As per the commission's recommendations, it was proposed that the 27% OBC reservation be categorized into four main categories.
This means a model in which the overall 27% would be maintained as is, while sub-categorization would occur within it. However, since the central government has not officially released these figures as a full report to the public, they should be viewed as details published about the report rather than a final government decision. (Testbook)
Sub-categorization: The Experience of Some States
The idea of sub-categorization within OBCs is not new. Various states have followed different sub-categorization methods within backward classes according to their social conditions.
In Telangana, the classification of BC reservations into five groups — A, B, C, D, E — has existed for a long time. Various BC groups were divided into different groups taking into account occupation, social backwardness, and historical circumstances.
Andhra Pradesh also has a system of classifying BCs into groups A, B, C, D, E. The policies there particularly reflect the idea that sub-categorization is necessary to ensure that reservation benefits reach the most backward sections.
Examples such as the sub-categorization policy for SCs in Punjab and the special categorization for the most backward classes in Tamil Nadu also show that states across India have attempted to address internal inequalities within a single reservation category.
Therefore, it would not be correct to view sub-categorization as an unusual or new idea.
However, one point is extremely important:
Sub-categorization in any state should be based on scientific data, not political calculations.
So Why Hasn't the Center Implemented It?
This is now the most critical question.
First, the Rohini Commission's report is not fully available to the public. Although the report was submitted to the President in 2023, its complete recommendations have not been disclosed by the Center. As a result, there is no official clarity on which points the government has accepted and which it has rejected.
Second, the lack of caste-wise population data. To determine what percentage of reservation should be given to a particular caste, strong data is needed on that caste's population, education, employment, socio-economic status, and existing representation. The Rohini Commission itself faced the limitation of not having up-to-date caste-wise population data.
Third, this is an extremely politically sensitive decision. If sub-categorization is carried out within the single large political-social category of OBCs, groups currently receiving more benefits may see a reduction. At the same time, the most backward sections that have not received benefits so far would gain new opportunities. Naturally, this invites political resistance.
Fourth, the legal and administrative process. Many aspects such as the central OBC list, recruitment policies, educational admissions, and the roster system would need to be changed. Therefore, simply having a commission report does not mean it is automatically implemented.
What Should Be Done in the Future?
India is now at a critical stage. Simply saying "OBCs have 27% reservation" is not enough. Questions need to be answered: Who has that 27% reached? Who has it not reached? Why hasn't it reached them?
For this, the first requirement is credible population data through a caste census. Not just how large the population is, but socio-economic indicators for each caste — education, employment, income, land, occupation, representation in government services — need to be scientifically collected.
Second, if each caste has a unique identification code (Unique Caste Code), confusion over spellings, synonyms, and sub-castes in caste names would be reduced. This would create a quality database for future policies.
Third, the Rohini Commission's report should be placed before Parliament and brought up for open discussion. Experts, states, OBC organizations, and social bodies should be given the opportunity to examine its recommendations.
Fourth, sub-categorization should not be limited only to jobs and education, but should be viewed as part of a broader policy of social justice. Special programs are needed in areas such as education, scholarships, hostels, skill development, financial assistance, business opportunities, and political representation for the most backward castes.
Mandal Commission posed a great question to India — how much share should backward classes have in power, jobs, and education?
The Rohini Commission took that question a step further —
"Of the share that has come to OBCs, how much share has come to each individual OBC caste?"
This is not a question opposed to Mandal. In fact, it is the next necessary question for implementing Mandal's social justice goal more deeply.
If a large group is given 27% reservation, but those benefits are limited to only a few castes, it cannot be said that the Constitution's intended goal of equal opportunity has been fully realized. At the same time, sub-categorization must also be carried out scientifically, based on evidence such as population statistics, representation data, and social backwardness.
Therefore, the future direction must be clear:
Caste census → caste-wise data → representation analysis → OBC sub-categorization → equal distribution → continuous review.
This is the step India must take in the post-Mandal phase — moving "from reservation toward genuine social justice."
Comments
Post a Comment