Rohini Commission report on OBC reservations triggers speculation 

A commission headed by former Delhi High Court chief justice G Rohini was constituted in 2017 and given 12 weeks to submit its recommendations. It took the commission six years and 14 extensions to submit a report, the content of which is not in the public domain. 

Quoting sources, however, the Hindustan Times on Saturday reported that the commission’s 1000-page report recommends a major departure from the conventional categorisation of other backward classes (OBCs) for the purpose of reservation. It also includes an updated list of all 2,633 OBCs across the country. 

The commission, HT has learned, recommends the classification of OBCs on the basis of quantum of benefits enjoyed by different communities. Some ‘extremely backward communities’ were found to have substantial representation in both services and educational institutions.  

The commission reportedly examined admissions to central government-run educational institutions, as well as recruitments by the central government, and found that as many as 983 OBCs had received nothing under the quota, while 994 castes had received just 2.68 per cent of the benefits. 

One of the reasons why the commission was set up was to ascertain if a few dominant OBCs were cornering the bulk of the reservation. The 27 per cent OBC reservation, it has been repeatedly said, is not filled up completely, that only a few dominant OBCs benefit from the quota, and that the 'creamy layers' in the communities have been the biggest beneficiaries. 

The commission is learned to have proposed the ‘sub-categorisation’ of the central list of OBCs on the basis of the quantum of benefits they enjoy. Those who have received no benefits could be offered 10 per cent of the OBC reservation (27 per cent), 10 per cent of the reservation could go to communities who have received some benefits and the remaining seven per cent to those who have received the maximum benefits. The HT report quotes sources in the commission as saying that there would be “no significant loss” for any one community. 

Significantly, in March 2023, the government in a written reply to Parliament had claimed that it had not shared with the Rohini Commission the data and details of the socio-economic survey of castes from the 2011 census, details which have not been made public yet. 

There is speculation that the government may present the report in Parliament in the special session convened on 18 September. The commission, with Dr JK Bajaj of the Centre for Policy Studies as a member, had representatives of the Anthropological Survey of India, the Office of the Registrar General of India, and the social justice and empowerment ministry. 

Data collected by the Rohini Commission are likely to show changes in the status of different OBCs and will have an impact on electoral arithmetic, as dominant OBCs are also politically and electorally dominant.  

It is by no means certain, though, that the BJP-led central government is anxious to act on the recommendations, which may have unpredictable and unexpected consequences. Implementing the recommendations may also be risky and involve loss of support and votes of some communities. 

In response to a question in the Lok Sabha in 2022 from AKP Chinraj of the DMK, who had asked if the government had shared caste data from the 2011 SECC with the commission, minister of state for social justice and empowerment A Narayanaswamy said: “No sir. No such request has been received from the Justice G. Rohini-led commission.” 

Professor Sukhadeo Thorat, former chairman of the University Grants Commission and the Indian Council of Social Science Research, had then reacted saying, “There has to be a study on socio-economic indicators like education, land-holding, poverty and also on levels of discrimination faced by these caste groups. Without this, any such work would not be possible.” 

In response to a question by YSRCP’s Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu, minister of state for SJ&E Pratima Bhoumik had stated that the government had not made a formal request to the home ministry for a headcount of the OBC population to be added to the census in the past five years. 

Asked why, the written reply stated: “The Census Act, 1948 does not have a provision for enumeration of the OBCs. Also, enumeration of OBC data is administratively complex and the information lacks completeness and accuracy since the State and Central list of OBCs are distinct.”