TN Assembly passes resolution urging Centre to use official OBC names in 2027 Census
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a resolution urging the Union government to collect caste details of Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, and Denotified Communities during the second phase of the 2027 Census, using the official lists notified by the State and Union governments
The resolution asks that these official lists be built into the census portal so citizens can select their caste from a fixed list rather than enter names in free text
It argues that regional and colloquial name variations for the same caste can produce unclear or inconsistent data if collection is not standardised
The resolution seeks that Backward Classes data be collected "in the same manner as followed for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes," i.e., using officially notified category lists rather than open-ended self-reporting
Constitutional and Statutory Basis of the Census
The decennial Census of India is conducted under the Census Act, 1948, with population census placed in the Union List (Entry 69 of the Seventh Schedule) under Article 246, giving Parliament exclusive legislative competence over it. This ensures a single, centrally-designed enumeration methodology applies uniformly across all states.
Because census design is entirely a Union subject, Tamil Nadu's Assembly could only pass a non-binding resolution requesting the Centre to adopt a specific data-collection method — it has no constitutional power to mandate the format itself.
Article 342A and the 102nd Constitutional Amendment (2018)
Article 342A, inserted by the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, empowers the President to notify the list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) for each state/UT, with any subsequent addition or deletion from that list requiring parliamentary law. This amendment also elevated the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) from a statutory to a constitutional body under the new Article 338B.
Key Details
- 102nd Amendment Act, 2018: inserted Articles 338B (NCBC) and 342A (notification of SEBCs), paralleling the existing Article 341 (SC list) and Article 342 (ST list) mechanism
- A Supreme Court Constitution Bench (2021, in the Maratha reservation case) ruled 3:2 that after the 102nd Amendment, only the President (i.e., the Union) can notify a state's SEBC/OBC list, not the state government acting alone — prompting the subsequent 105th Amendment Act, 2021 to restore states' power to maintain their own OBC lists for state purposes
- Tamil Nadu's resolution references both "state and Union" official lists, reflecting this restored dual-list structure under the 105th Amendment
- Categories referenced in the resolution — Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, Denotified Communities — are Tamil Nadu-specific sub-classifications maintained under its own state OBC list
The resolution's demand to use "official lists of the state and union governments" for caste enumeration directly reflects the layered Article 342A/105th Amendment framework, under which both the Centre (national SEBC list) and states (their own OBC lists, restored in 2021) maintain overlapping but distinct backward-classes lists.
Mandal Commission, Reservation Ceiling, and the Caste Census Debate
The Mandal Commission (1980) estimated OBCs at nearly 52% of India's population and recommended 27% reservation in central government jobs, which was implemented in 1990 and upheld by the Supreme Court's nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). That judgment also fixed a general 50% ceiling on total reservations and introduced the "creamy layer" exclusion principle. India has never conducted a full caste-wise enumeration since 1931; the 2011 SECC collected caste data but the results were never officially released due to data-quality concerns.
Key Details
- Mandal Commission (1980), chaired by B.P. Mandal; recommendations implemented for OBC reservation in central jobs from 1990
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): upheld 27% OBC quota, capped total reservation at 50% (with exceptions), introduced the creamy-layer concept, and barred reservation in promotions
- Bihar's 2022-23 caste-based survey (data released October 2023) — the first sub-national caste enumeration of its scale since 1931 — found OBCs and EBCs together comprised about 63% of the state's population
- Precise, officially-notified caste lists (as TN's resolution demands) are seen as essential to avoid the ambiguity that undermined the 2011 SECC's caste data, where thousands of unclassifiable caste-name entries were recorded due to open-ended self-reporting
Tamil Nadu's push for a closed, official-list-based caste selection mechanism is a direct response to lessons from the 2011 SECC's data problems, aiming to ensure that a future national caste count produces usable data for policy purposes such as reservation calibration, without disturbing the Indra Sawhney-mandated 50% ceiling debate.
- Census Act, 1948; census is a Union List subject (Entry 69, Seventh Schedule, read with Article 246)
- 102nd Amendment Act (2018): inserted Articles 338B (NCBC) and 342A (SEBC notification)
- 105th Amendment Act (2021): restored states' power to notify their own OBC/backward classes lists
- Mandal Commission (1980): estimated OBC population at ~52%; recommended 27% central job reservation, implemented 1990
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): 9-judge bench upheld 27% OBC quota; fixed 50% overall reservation ceiling; introduced creamy layer
- Bihar caste survey (2022-23, released October 2023): OBCs + EBCs formed ~63% of the state's population — first sizeable caste enumeration since the 1931 Census
- 2011 Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC): caste data collected but never officially released due to classification inconsistencies