After being re-elected with a bigger mandate in 2019, the Modi government amended the Constitution three times – all pertaining to reservation. In 2019, Parliament agreed to continue the affirmative action for SC/STs first granted by the Constituent Assembly in 1950, retaining their reservation till 2030.
The Constitutional Amendments enacted in PM Modi’s first term are explored in the first part of this article.
In 2021, it attempted a course-correction of the constitutional amendment passed in 2018 which gave the National Commission of Backward Classes (NCBC) a constitutional status. With the Supreme Court stating that only the President can decide which communities fall under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) list, Parliament hurriedly passed the 105th amendment to undo the damage.
In 2023, Indian women finally got their promised reservation of 33% in the Lok Sabha, State legislatures and local bodies.
As India celebrates its 77th Republic Day today, here’s a look at these amendments:
National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) (2018)
Giving voice to India’s largest population group – the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Parliament, in August 2018, passed the 102nd Constitutional amendment to give the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) a constitutional status. The NCBC was empowered to investigate matters of SEBCs, present regular reports to the President on these issues, make recommendations to the Centre and States on measures to improve and protect SEBCs, with the powers of a civil court.
Previously, the grievances of the OBC communities were addressed by the National Commission of Scheduled Castes, while the NCBC was limited to recommend additions or deletions to the OBC list and cut-off income for ‘creamy layer’ exclusion from reservation.
The Act also empowered the President to specify SEBCs with respect to a State and made Parliamentary approval mandatory for addition and deletion of a community from the OBC list.
“In 1955, the Kaka Kalelkar report had recommended 70% reservation to SEBCs in educational institutions. But Nehru suggested that State governments should prepare a list of backward classes in their own states and attend to their problems. The Centre washed its hands off this,” explained P.D.T. Achary, former Secretary General of Lok Sabha, when asked why NCBC required a constitutional status, adding, “Under the Mandal report, the government exercised its executive power and set up the NCBC (in 1993). It was not a statutory or constitutional authority and did not have much power”.
On May 5, 2021, the Supreme Court, upheld this amendment noting that ‘President [that is the Centre] alone is empowered to identify SEBCs and include them in the OBC list’, snatching away States’ right to identify such groups. The ruling came as the Supreme Court struck down the 18% reservation accorded to Marathas by classifying them as SEBC by the Maharashtra government.
In response, Centre argued that the Act did not intend to take away the State’s power to identify SEBCs and that the term ‘Central List’ was meant for the government’s usage of the list of backward classes notified by the President. Opposition MPs blamed the Centre for enacting a ‘flawed law’.
“It was in the interest of the [Maharashtra] government to continue reservation to Marathas. That alliance [Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress] was very important to them,” said Mr. Achary.
OBC reservation given back to States (2021)
To undo the Supreme Court’s verdict which centralised the list of backward classes list, Parliament passed the 105th constitutional amendment with the required special majority, restoring States’ right to classify SEBCs. The law was passed mere three months after the Supreme Court verdict upholding the 102nd Amendment.
The new Act clarified that while NCBC should be consulted on policy matters, it did not include the States’ list of SEBCs. It added that the specified ‘Central List’ of OBCs was to be ‘prepared and maintained by and for the Centre’ and every State or Union Territory may, by law, prepare and maintain for its own purposes a list of SEBCs, which may differ from the Central list.
However, NCBC has faced criticism for attempting to prune State OBC lists and stalling requests to include around 80 castes/communities in the Central OBC list. In 2024, the NCBC questioned Karnataka’s Congress government why 17 and 19 Muslim castes were separately included in Category-I and Category-II B of the OBC list. Similarly, NCBC pulled up West Bengal’s Trinamool government for ‘including more Muslim than Hindu groups’ in the OBC list. The Commission has recommended deletion of 35 Muslim communities from the Central OBC list for West Bengal, in a bid to ‘ensure true social justice’.
“The spirit of the 105th amendment is that the State governments can decide which communities can be brought into the SEBC list, without consulting the NCBC. So, it cannot interfere with the States’ list or stop the inclusion,” clarified Mr. Achary. Citing the examples of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, Mr. Achary said that several Muslim communities, converted Christians and Dalit Christians have been included in the SEBC list.
“However, this government [BJP in Centre] did not want that which is why they brought this 102nd amendment. But when Maratha reservation was struck down, which was politically very important to them, they switched back to the earlier position,” he said.
Explaining why several Muslim communities feature in SEBC lists, Mr. Achary adds, “It is Backward classes, not caste. Class is religion neutral. Reservation was meant for those who suffered under the Hindu Caste system. While Islam and Christianity do not recognise castes, converted families were continued to be treated as lower castes — a peculiarity only in India, where caste system has rubbed off on them. Though theoretically it was impermissible for Muslims/Christians to avail reservation, State governments took a practical view and included them in SEBC lists”.
SC/ST reservation extended (2019)
“Reason for which Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were accorded reservation by the Constituent Assembly have not yet ceased to exist. To retain the inclusive character as envisioned by the founding fathers, SC/ST reservation for seats will continue upto January 25, 2030,” the Parliament stated, while passing the 104th Constitutional Amendment on December 12, 2019. However, the new amendment abolished the reservation accorded to Anglo-Indian communities in Lok Sabha and State legislatures. The Bill was passed unanimously by both Houses with no votes against it.
Women’s reservation in Parliament/legislative bodies (2023)
Touted as India’s largest minority, women — who comprise 48% of the total population, were accorded one-third reservation in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies on September 20, 2023. With 454 members supporting and two opposing in a manual vote, the Bill passed both Houses in a special session convened by the government. The Bill was first tabled in Parliament by the Deve Gowda government in 1996, before being sent to several Standing Committees only for it to lapse repeatedly.
In spite of President Droupadi Murmu giving her assent to the Bill, as stipulated, the women’s quota will kick in after the next census (2026-27) and subsequent delimitation exercise. The reservation will last for 15 years and has quotas for SC/ST women in it, but none for OBCs. The Supreme Court has dismissed repeated challenges to the Bill. Petitioners argued that the implementation of the quota only after the census and delimitation, was in violation of women’s right to equality.
Published – January 26, 2026 09:17 pm IST
