With the Supreme Court staying the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, on the ground that it has a “vague” language and could “divide” society, the BJP-led Centre’s move to bring the OBCs among vulnerable groups that face caste-based discrimination has run into rough weather.
The OBC category was carved out on the basis of social and educational backwardness rather than on the ground of historical oppression and injustice, which the Scheduled Castes (SCs) had been subjected to, but there have been signs that discrimination against OBCs has led to the government looking at them through a new lens.
While the Centre’s push for new UGC rules has been stayed by the apex court, the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government in Karnataka has drafted the Rohith Vemula Bill to counter discrimination in the higher education institutions against the SC, ST (Scheduled Tribes), OBC and minority students. It is named after Rohith Vemula, who died by suicide over alleged caste-based discrimination at University of Hyderabad (UoH) in 2016. Vemula’s mother petitioned the apex court to demand steps to counter caste discrimination on the campuses of colleges and varsities across the country.
Congress leader and Raichur MP G Kumar Naik told The Indian Express, “The Rohith Vemula Bill has been planned because we noticed that SC, ST, OBC and minority students are now taking to higher education in large numbers. Many with rural backgrounds are first-generation learners, and there have been instances of discrimination. So the Karnataka government decided to step in.”
A senior OBC leader from the BJP admitted that the party was seized of the issue pertaining to discrimination complaints of the OBC communities, but declined to go on record, saying the apex court has to take a final call on the UGC regulation matter.
The OBCs, estimated to make up about half of India’s population – the exact numbers will be known in the 2027 Census, where castes will also be enumerated for the first time after Independence – include many suppressed and marginalised communities and some dominant groups.
While atrocity was a lens widely used to look at the plight of Dalits, it was not done so in the case of the OBCs. A little-known provision permitted the National Commission of Scheduled Castes (NCSC) to take up matters related to discrimination against the OBCs, as Article 338 (10) of the Constitution, which provides for the creation of the Commission, says, “In this article, references to the Scheduled Castes shall be construed as including references to such other backward classes as the President may, on receipt of the report of a Commission appointed under clause (1) of article 340 by order specify and also to the Anglo-Indian community.”
After the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) became a constitutional body in 2018, it acquired the powers of a civil court, which could address the OBCs’ grievances. BJP leader Hansraj Ahir, the former NCBC chairperson, told The Indian Express, “The NCBC now has the powers of a civil court and looks into various kinds of complaints, like OBCs’ concerns regarding admissions, and also take up matters with PSUs. We have taken up these issues at the highest levels in the concerned states. We also communicated with state governments regarding the need for filling OBC vacancies.”
Category differences
The SC category refers to those communities that were once subjected to untouchability. The 1910 Gait Circular issued by Commissioner of the Census E A Gait suggested listing of “outcastes” separately from the Hindus. In 1911, the Census Commissioner instructed census superintendents of various provinces to enumerate separately those castes classed as Hindus who were subject to certain social disabilities – denial of social and scriptural equality, denial of access to Hindu temples and Brahmin priests – and were considered “polluting”.
All the untouchable castes were “scheduled” in 1936, which led to the formation of the official group of “Scheduled Castes”. In other words, the category sought to club together former untouchables. The Constitution, which came into force in 1950, abolished untouchability and also made provision of reservations for the SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
The genesis of the OBC category is different. The Constitution made mention of the OBCs, in addition to the SCs and STs, as potential beneficiaries of state safeguards but did not define them. The present definition of the OBCs stems from the report of the Second Backward Class Commission, or the Mandal Commission, constituted in 1979, which applied 11 criteria to castes to assess their backwardness. These were social criteria, each having three points; educational criteria, each with two points; and economic criteria, with one point. The castes that got 11 points were classified as the OBCs.
The Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case of 1992 upheld the report of the Mandal Commission, ruling that there was a caste-class overlap in the Indian context and that the backward castes could thus be seen as a class. However, the court excluded the creamy layer from OBC benefits and also capped total reservation at 50%.
Because of the different origins of the SC, ST categories on the one hand and the OBC group on the other, there are laws to ensure that the SCs and STs are not discriminated against. The Constitution had abolished untouchability under Article 17 – and the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, was amended and renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976, in order to prescribe punishment for practising untouchability. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was enacted in 1989.
Disquiet in BJP
There has been unease in the BJP over the UGC regulation row, which had triggered protests by a section of students after the new rules were notified on January 13. After the top court stayed these regulations, there have been resentment among other groups.
The principal Opposition Congress has adopted a non-committal stance over the controversy, with its leaders describing the situation as a “win-win” for the party.
“We knew there was no point in muddying our hands over this issue. Hence, none of our top leaders spoke about it,” said a senior All India Congress Committee (AICC) leader from the OBC community.
“We knew it was a win-win for us and a catch-22 situation for the BJP. If they withdrew the regulations, they would antagonise the SC, ST and OBC communities, and if they did not, they would anger upper-caste voters who are their base. The Congress realised this and instructed its leaders to not speak on the issue publicly,” the AICC leader said.
The question before us, then, is not merely legal or procedural. It is fundamentally moral and political 
Share
