Exclusion of Castes from the Central OBC List: Reasons, Procedure, Constitutional Provisions

The exclusion of castes and communities from the Central List of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) has emerged as a significant policy and constitutional issue in India. Recent developments, particularly recommendations by the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) to remove certain communities from the Central OBC lists of States such as West Bengal, have revived debates on social justice, reservation policy, and the criteria for backwardness.

This article explains why castes are excluded, who decides, the constitutional framework, and the implications of such exclusions.

What Is the Central OBC List?

The Central OBC List is a list of socially and educationally backward classes identified for the purpose of reservation in Central Government jobs, educational institutions, and welfare schemes.

• It is distinct from State OBC lists

• Maintained by the Union Government

• Used for Central services and institutions

A community included in a State OBC list does not automatically qualify for inclusion in the Central OBC list.

Who Decides Inclusion or Exclusion from the Central OBC List?

The authority to recommend changes lies with the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), while the final decision rests with Parliament and the President of India.

Constitutional Basis

• Article 338B: Grants constitutional status to the NCBC

• Article 342A: Empowers the President to notify the Central OBC list, subject to Parliamentary approval

These provisions were introduced through the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018.

Why Are Castes Excluded from the Central OBC List?

Communities may be excluded from the Central OBC list due to the following reasons:

1. Lack of Quantifiable Backwardness Data

Courts and commissions increasingly demand empirical evidence showing:

• Social backwardness

• Educational deprivation

• Inadequate representation in public employment

Absence of such data can lead to exclusion.

2. Improper Use of Religion as a Criterion

The Constitution prohibits religion-based reservation.
If inclusion appears to be primarily religion-driven rather than backwardness-driven, it may be challenged legally.

3. Changes in Socio-Economic Status

Communities that show significant improvement in literacy, income, or representation may no longer qualify as backward under constitutional standards.

4. Judicial Scrutiny and Court Orders

High Courts and the Supreme Court may:

• Strike down inclusions

• Demand fresh surveys

• Question procedural lapses in classification

5. Procedural Irregularities

Inclusion without:

• Proper surveys

• Data-backed reports

• Transparent methodology

can be grounds for later exclusion.

Recent Case: Exclusion of Communities in West Bengal

In 2025, the NCBC recommended the exclusion of 35 communities, largely Muslim, from West Bengal’s Central OBC list. These communities were added in 2014 based on earlier State and NCBC recommendations.

The current NCBC argued that:

• Quantifiable data was insufficient

• Religion appeared to be a dominant factor

• Inclusion lacked constitutional rigor

The matter is currently under judicial consideration, and no final decision has been taken by the Union Government.

Is Exclusion Permanent?

No. Exclusion from the Central OBC list is not irreversible.

• Communities can reapply for inclusion

• Fresh socio-economic surveys can be conducted

• NCBC can reassess cases based on new data

However, post-2018, any change requires Parliamentary approval, making the process more rigorous.

Impact of Exclusion from the Central OBC List

On Communities

• Loss of reservation benefits in Central services

• Reduced access to Central educational institutions

• Psychological and political marginalisation

On Governance

• Strengthens constitutional discipline in affirmative action

• Promotes data-driven policymaking

• Reduces arbitrariness in reservation policies

Constitutional and Policy Debate

The debate around exclusion raises key questions:

• Should backwardness be time-bound?

• Can historical discrimination alone justify permanent reservation?

• How should religious minorities intersect with caste-based reservations?

These questions remain unresolved and are likely to shape future reservation jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The exclusion of castes from the Central OBC list reflects India’s evolving approach to affirmative action, where constitutional scrutiny, empirical data, and judicial oversight play an increasingly decisive role. While exclusion may cause short-term disruption, it reinforces the principle that reservation must be based on demonstrable backwardness, not identity alone.

As India balances social justice with constitutional equality, the Central OBC list will continue to be a site of legal, political, and ethical contestation.

Sharing is caring!