In OBC Bill passage, politics met principle

The support extended by all political parties to the Constitution (127th) Amendment Bill, which restored the power of states and Union Territories to identify and notify their own lists of Other Backward Classes (OBCs), was to be expected. All parties had announced their support for the bill, and Parliament passed it unanimously in a rare display of unity last week, though the monsoon session was otherwise all but washed out. The bill was necessitated by a Supreme Court judgement that struck down the Maharashtra government’s decision to grant reservations to the Maratha community, but more importantly laid down that the power to determine the classification of backward groups rested with the Centre. This was based on the court’s view of the Constitution (102nd) Amendment by which a National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) was created.

The court held that only a single list of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC) was to be drawn up with respect to each state and it was to be notified by the President. States can only make recommendations for inclusion or exclusion, and changes could only be made by Parliament. The court felt that Parliament’s intent behind the 102nd Amendment was to create a scheme for identification of backward classes in the same manner as for SCs and STs. The Amendment had introduced three Articles which constituted the NCBC, mandated a central list of backward classes, and defined SEBCs. The Supreme Court ruled that after the amendment, states did not have the power to identify the SEBCs. This would have made an impact. It is estimated that nearly 671 OBC communities, about a fifth of all OBC communities, would have lost access to reservations if the state lists were abolished.

Several states were unhappy that an important power that they possessed had been curtailed. Many of them also felt that it was against the federal character of the Constitution. States were right in taking that view because backwardness is a relative condition. Communities that are backward in one state may not be backward in another, and so ideally, it is for the states to take a decision on it. State governments are swayed by politics in taking such decisions, as in the case of the Maratha reservation, but that does not negate the principle that they should have the power make their own lists. There is also politics in the Centre’s decision to restore that power to the states and the parties’ decision to support it. The Centre could not afford to alienate backward communities when elections in many states, including UP, are due, and political parties, especially regional parties, did not want to lose an important power that they had at the state level.