The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) has recommended the removal of 35 communities — most of them Muslim — from West Bengal’s Central list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The disclosure, made during Parliament’s winter session, has arrived at a politically and legally sensitive moment: West Bengal heads into Assembly elections in 2026, while the Supreme Court is already examining the legality of how several communities were added to the State’s OBC lists. Together, these developments reopen difficult questions about caste, religion, constitutional procedure, and the politics of backwardness.
What Exactly Has the NCBC Recommended?
The NCBC’s recommendation, submitted to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in January this year, concerns a group of 37 communities that were added to West Bengal’s Central OBC list in early 2014. Of these, 35 are Muslim communities, while two — Devanga and Gangot — are non-Muslim.
These communities were part of a larger set examined by the West Bengal State Commission for Backward Classes in 2010, which studied 46 castes and communities and concluded that they were socially and educationally backward and under-represented in public services. Based on this, the State included them in its OBC list, and subsequently sought their inclusion in the Central OBC list.
In 2011, the then NCBC, chaired by Justice M. N. Rao, accepted the State’s findings and recommended the inclusion of 37 communities in the Central list. This recommendation was notified by the Union government in 2014, shortly before the Lok Sabha elections.
Why Were These Communities Considered Backward?
At the time of inclusion, the justification rested on classical OBC criteria: social discrimination, educational deprivation, economic vulnerability, and inadequate representation in government services.
The NCBC noted that most of these communities were engaged in low-income, manual or caste-linked occupations such as agricultural labour, rickshaw pulling, bidi rolling, barbering and tailoring. In several cases, it observed that these professions were historically associated with “lower castes” in Hindu society, and that conversion to Islam had not eliminated caste-like discrimination.
The Commission also recorded that some of these Muslim communities faced exclusion even within Islamic social practices, including being treated “like Scheduled Castes”, such as being asked to offer prayers separately. In other instances, the NCBC pointed out that Hindu counterparts of these communities were already classified as OBCs or even Scheduled Castes in other States.
Importantly, these findings were shaped by the broader policy environment of the time, including the Sachar Committee Report (2006), which highlighted the deep socio-economic marginalisation of Muslims, and the Ranganath Mishra Committee Report (2007), which argued that caste disabilities persisted even after religious conversion.
Why Has the NCBC Changed Its Position Now?
Nearly 15 years later, the NCBC — under the chairmanship of Hansraj Gangaram Ahir — has reversed course. Since assuming office in 2022, the Commission has actively scrutinised OBC lists, beginning with a study visit to West Bengal in early 2023.
Following this visit, the Commission publicly expressed suspicion about what it described as a “high number of Muslim communities” in State OBC lists. Similar scrutiny was later extended to Karnataka. These observations entered political discourse, particularly during the run-up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, where allegations of “minority appeasement” became a recurring theme.
In May 2024, the Calcutta High Court struck down the inclusion of a large number of OBC communities in West Bengal — predominantly Muslim — holding that religion had been the “sole criterion” for declaring them backward. Though the Supreme Court stayed this judgment, the NCBC continued its review of the Central OBC list, arguing that many of the questioned State communities overlapped with those added centrally in 2014.
By January 2025, the NCBC formally advised the exclusion of 35 of the 37 communities from the Central OBC list.
How Did the Earlier NCBC Defend the Inclusion?
The concern that these inclusions were politically motivated or religion-based is not new. It was raised before the NCBC in 2011 as well. At that time, the Commission explicitly rejected such objections, stating that it found no political angle in the State government’s request.
The earlier NCBC emphasised that it was not conducting a fresh independent survey because a detailed inquiry had already been carried out by the State Commission for Backward Classes. It relied on the State’s conclusions regarding social and educational backwardness and under-representation in services.
However, a notable weakness in the 2011 advice was the limited presentation of quantifiable data. While some indicators were mentioned for the Devanga and Gangot communities, detailed socio-economic statistics were absent for most of the Muslim communities — a gap that has now become central to judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court’s Role and Constitutional Questions
The Supreme Court, while hearing challenges related to West Bengal’s OBC lists, has asked the State to produce quantifiable data demonstrating backwardness, particularly in terms of representation in public employment. This reflects settled constitutional jurisprudence that affirmative action must be backed by empirical evidence.
At stake is not merely the fate of these 35 communities, but a larger constitutional question: can backwardness be inferred from religious identity, or must it be strictly demonstrated through objective socio-economic criteria? The answer will shape OBC policy far beyond West Bengal.
What Happens Procedurally from Here?
Unlike in 2014, the Union government can no longer notify changes to the Central OBC list through executive action alone. The Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 granted constitutional status to the NCBC and mandated that any inclusion or exclusion in the Central OBC list must be approved by Parliament and notified by the President.
While the NCBC has sent similar recommendations for eight other States, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has yet to decide whether to move legislation on West Bengal’s list. Any such move will inevitably intersect with the pending Supreme Court proceedings and the political climate ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.
What to Note for Prelims?
- NCBC is a constitutional body under the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018.
- Changes to the Central OBC list now require Parliamentary approval and Presidential notification.
- 35 of 37 communities recommended for exclusion in West Bengal are Muslim.
- Key reports: Sachar Committee (2006), Ranganath Mishra Committee (2007).
- Calcutta High Court judgment on OBC lists is stayed by the Supreme Court.
What to Note for Mains?
- Debate on caste, religion and criteria for backwardness in India.
- Role of data and empirical evidence in affirmative action policy.
- Federal tensions between State and Centre in identifying OBCs.
- Impact of judicial scrutiny on social justice policies.
- Political economy of reservations in election-bound States.
