Reservation Grounded In Historical & Social Backwardness Rather Than Economic Status: Centre Opposes Income Based Sub-Classification Of SC, ST & OBC

The Union of India, while opposing the prayer to implement an income-based preference across all reservation categories, said that reservations for SC, ST, and OBC communities are grounded in historical social backwardness rather than purely economic criteria.

A plea was filed before the Supreme Court to frame policies for a more equitable and just system of reservation in government employment and educational opportunities thereby Ensuring Equitable Distribution of Reservation Benefits on A Merit-Cum-Means Approach and to implement the income-based preferences within each reserved category to ensure equitable distribution of benefits among economically weaker candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

The Petition also sought guidelines to ensure that candidates from economically weaker backgrounds within each reserved category are treated as a sub-class, and accorded higher merit and priority in the selection process in compliance with the law laid down by the Court in State of Punjab & Ors v. Davinder Singh & Ors.

The Union has filed its affidavit in response to the plea and briefly explained the background regarding the constitutional provisions, procedures, and criteria established for identifying SCs, STs, OBCs/SEBCs, and EWS.

It was stated that under Article 341 and Article 342 of the Constitution, the initial lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were specified by the President via notified Orders after consultation with the respective State Governments. Any subsequent amendment, inclusion, or exclusion could only be effected through an Act of Parliament, thereby denying State Governments, courts, or tribunals the authority to alter these lists.

It said, "Thus, first Central list of socially and Educationally Backward Classes in relation to a State or Union Territory is by a notified Order of the President, after consultation with the concerned State Government. Any amendment in the list of socially and Educationally Backward Classes, once notified by the President under clause (1) of Articles 342A can be made only by an Act of Parliament in view of clause (2) of Article 342A. Exclusion even of a part or a group of Class from the Central list of OBCs/SEBCs can be done only by the Parliament and it is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or any other authority to modity, amend or alter the list of OBCs/SEBCs. Further, under clause (3) of Article 342A, the States and UTs may, have their own list of socially and Educationally Backward Classes."

The Union of India has also said that the criteria for inclusion in the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and Socially and Educationally Backward Class lists are based on historical, social, and economic backwardness; on the other hand, socially and educationally backward classes are identified by social, educational, and economic disadvantages, along with a lack of representation in services. These criteria are not spelt out in the Constitution but have become well established.

"Thus, the identification of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs)/Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is based on historical and social criteria like caste, tribe, and social backwardness, not solely on economic status. The criteria for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes subsumes the definition of these categories contained in 1931 Census, the report of First Backward Classes Commission (Kalelkar Commission), 1955, the Advisory Committee on the Revision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Lokur Committee), 1965 and the Joint Committee of Parliament on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Bill, 1967 (Chanda Committee), 1969. Similarly, the criteria for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes subsumes the criteria of Mandal Commission and the commissions set up in the past by different State Governments and other relevant materials", the Affidavit stated.

It also highlighted that the main objectives of the current regime of reservations in the country are to achieve social equality and justice, overcome historical disadvantages and discrimination, ensure economic empowerment and upliftment for marginalized communities, and promote their inclusive participation in education, public services, and decision-making processes. This system aims to provide fair opportunities, reduce economic disparities, and foster diversity in governance and academia by addressing historical marginalization.

"That the present Writ Petition (Civil), neither raises any question of law pertaining to the Constitution of India which needs interpretation of this Hon'ble Court nor discloses the infringement of the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India and therefore, is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and hence deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost", it prayed.

It was stated that the Apex Court in a catena of Judgments has already dealt with the scope and ambit of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. It has been held that a notification issued under Clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342, specifying SCs and STs, can be amended only by law made by the Parliament. In other words, any caste tribe or part of or group within any caste/tribe can be included or excluded from the list of SCs or STs issued under Clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 only by the Parliament by law and by no other authority and it is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of SCs or STs specified in the notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 341 or 342.

"Therefore, the present application is a misconceived one. Now similar provisions have been made for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes vide the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018", it added.

It was averred, "That in majority of schemes of welfare and development of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes excepting reservation in educational institutions and reservation in services under the State, there is means test which ensures that benefits of schemes percolate to those who actually deserves them. The petitioners have not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and indulged in misstatement of facts solely with the intention of misleading this Hon'ble Court."

Finally, the Respondent submitted that the relief claimed by the Petitioners essentially sought judicial direction to compel the Executive to frame policy in a particular manner, which fell outside the domain of judicial review.

Relying on the decisions in Union of India v. M. Selvakumar, Rachna v. Union of India, Asif Hameed v. State of J&K, and Anun Dhawan v. Union of India, the Respondent emphasized that courts do not formulate policy or direct the State on policy matters unless a policy is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or violative of constitutional limits.

Consequently, Respondent No. 2 prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition as misconceived, devoid of merit, and non-maintainable.

The matter is likely to be listed on August 18, 2026.

Cause Title: Ramashankar Prajapati & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [WPC No. 682 of 2025]

Click here to read/download the Affidavit