INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh was a defining moment in the evolution of India’s affirmative action framework. By upholding sub-categorization within Scheduled Castes, the Court dismantled the assumption of homogeneity among marginalized groups. Instead, it acknowledged the stark hierarchies and inequities within these communities, paving the way for a more nuanced approach to reservations. It also highlighted that sub classification within OBCs is not at equal footing with Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe, given the differences in the history of backwardness both have faced.
This judgment shifts the discourse from formal equality to substantive justice (justice which ensures fairness, equity, access, and redress) ensuring the benefits of affirmative action reach those most disadvantaged. It also reopens the conversation around sub-categorization within OBCs, reinforcing the need for equitable and targeted measures.
The Court cites Justice Jeevan Reddy’s interpretation from Indra Sawhney case to emphasize that “poorer” must be viewed in a socio-economic context. This means poverty is not a deterministic phenomenon. By incorporating this broader perspective, the judgment supports sub-classification within socially and educationally backward classes, arguing that relying only on economic criteria is insufficient to capture the true multidimensional nature of disadvantage.
In a society with millions of people barely surviving, it becomes important that the benefits of affirmative action are reaped by the most vulnerable because they are the one who need it the most to survive. However, the current approach of determining backwardness within OBCs follows a method based on income or economic capital, which is only a partial picture of the whole account and needs assimilation of multiple factors.
In authors view, with the passage of time the definition of “backwardness” has also been progressing. The beginning of modern era has forced policy makers to move beyond economic markers. Policy makers must adopt inclusive measures integrating social, cultural, and environmental dimensions, dismantling hierarchies and empowering communities to achieve sustainable progress.
This article shows that from jurisprudence and data to Pierre Bourdieu’s multidimensional framework supplemented with Amartya sen’s capability approach, backwardness must be holistically assessed, integrating social, cultural, and symbolic dimensions with economic ones. And would try to address ways to determine backwardness within OBCs.
SUBCLASSIFICATION: A DAUNTING ISSUE ?
The “creamy layer” construed within Other Backward Classes (OBCs), as defined in Section 2(g) of The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, which states :
“Other Backward Classes” means the class or classes of citizens who are socially and educationally backward, and are so determined by the Central Government.”
grants the Central Government wide latitude of powers in determining backwardness. The current ₹12 lakh income threshold by the central government is fundamentally ignoring the realities and history of social exclusion which the backward classes have experienced as highlighted in the book Change and Mobility in Contemporary India: Thinking M. N. Srinivas Today which states :
“[the] Dalits who moved out of traditional occupations by breaking caste ties were usually stuck at the lower rung of the economic class, highlighting that such movement did not translate into the betterment of their economic condition. The reasons are several, ranging from higher initial levels of vulnerabilities and discrimination to lack of social capital and effective business network support and economic exclusion .”
The excerpt from the book tries to convey the idea that marginalized communities unknowingly are in depths of societal oppression, thereafter requiring a way which could address not only their economic appetites but should also be able to confront the perpetuating social stigma.
The case of Ashok Kumar Thakur v. The Union of India (2008) held :
[In] order to achieve a casteless and classless society, after a lapse of ten years, special preference or reservation should be granted only on the basis of economic criteria as long as grave disparity and inequality persist.
These statements place an arbitrary concentration on economic criteria and have neglected that a person’s life is not only influenced by income or economic capital. There are other aspects which cannot be ignored and are far beyond numerical terms, that affect a person’s life. In India, where caste discrimination is so deeply ingrained, a person’s life cannot be simply bootstrapped with income. This idea is reinforced by the Justice Rohini Commission, which explicitly states :
“A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria.”
The argument of Commission does not completely refute the economic dimension but tries to convey that it is a part of the larger narrative.
WHAT THE JURISPRUDENCE SAYS ?
Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, in its dynamic interpretation (interpretation which keep the current needs of the society into account), encompasses the ethos of positive discrimination, seeking to relieve historically marginalized communities from entrenched systems of oppression. These provisions, as elucidated in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India , transcend the oversimplified paradigm of economic determinism, emphasizing instead complex entanglements of caste, educational disentitlement, and systemic exclusion. The reasoning by the Court condemns the backwardness to narrow monetary parameters alone, arguing that caste-based stratifications perpetuate a multifaceted deprivation that cannot be resolved merely through financial redistributions. Evidence from the Justice Rohini Commission report also points out the deep-rooted inequalities inherent in the OBC system.
Statistical data of over 1,30,000 instances of state-sanctioned affirmative action reveals that an overwhelming 97% of the benefits were appropriated by a mere quarter of OBC sub-castes, while 983 recognized communities languished in total exclusion. Moreover, only 2.68% of these entitlements percolated to the most marginalized strata, showing monopolization by dominant sub-groups. Such findings are indicated in the Mandal Commission’s predictive critique of intra-group disparities, marking how detestable elite sub-castes are entrenched within affirmative action structures.
In K.C. Vasanth Kumar & Another v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of addressing multidimensional backwardness. The Court recognized that caste and economic factors are deeply intertwined in Indian society, stating:
“Caste and economic situation, reflecting each other as they do, are the Deus ex Machina of the social status occupied and the economic power wielded by an individual or class in rural society. Shared situations in the economic hierarchy, caste gradation, occupation, habitation, and standard of literacy, among other factors, contribute to social and educational backwardness”
Likewise, State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, Justice K.K. Mathew recounting on the principle of equality stated :
“The concept of equality of opportunity is an aspect of the more comprehensive notion of equality. The idea of equality has different shades of meaning and connotations. It has many facets and implications.”
Applying these statements in congruence with Article 38 (2) of Constitution of India, which directs the state to:
“strive to minimize the inequalities in income, and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.”
Enlarge our understanding of interpretation of constitution left by the founding fathers of the nation and also ensure that the constitutional values do not get crushed under societal progress.
Through the theory of Dynamic interpretation, it could be very well deduced that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) operate not as temporary mitigations to economic demands but as instruments of definitive socio-political recalibration. These constitutional provisions strive to deconstruct hegemonic caste hierarchies, ensuring that affirmative action measures reach the most marginalized communities, thus achieving their intended egalitarian purpose.
[CONTINUED IN THE NEXT PART]
(This post has been authored by Kushagra Jaiswal, a first-year law student at NALSAR, Hyderabad)
CITE AS: Kushagra Jaiswal, ‘Beyond Economic Capital : A Multidimensional Framework Of Determining Backwardness With Obcs: Part II‘ (The Contemporary Law Forum, 26 March 2025) <https://tclf.in/2025/03/26/beyond-economic-capital-a-multidimensional-framework-of-determining-backwardness-with-obcs-part-1/>date of access.