Kerala’s OBC Quota Faces NCBC, CAG Scrutiny
New Delhi: The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) has escalated scrutiny of Kerala’s Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation regime after finding that the state appears to have allocated 10 per cent of OBC reservation to Muslim communities and 6 per cent to Christian communities without offering documentary or legal justification.
In a review held on September 9, 2025, officials from Kerala’s Backward Classes Development Department were unable to produce socio-economic surveys, court orders or investigative reports that would substantiate a religiously defined division of quota benefits; the Commission, chaired by Hansraj Ahir, has given the state a 15-day deadline to supply full evidence and a comprehensive statement of reservation allocations across employment, higher education and medical education.
The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment published the Commission’s findings on October 31, 2025, noting that documents Kerala submitted to the Commission on September 26 were “totally lacking in clarity.” The Commission said the absence of an evidentiary basis for faith-based allocations risked diverting entitlements intended for original OBC castes. It framed its review within Article 338B of the Constitution of India, under which the Commission monitors safeguards for socially and educationally backward classes and may demand corrective measures when statutory or constitutional norms are not observed. This provision, inserted by the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2018, grants the Commission constitutional status, investigative powers, and the authority to summon officials, inspect records, and issue binding recommendations. States are required to consult the Commission on all major OBC policy changes, and non-compliance can lead to adverse reports to Parliament or judicial escalation.
The NCBC also queried a seeming shortfall in Kerala’s total OBC reservation relative to the commonly referenced 27 per cent benchmark and asked whether the state Backward Classes Commission, the federal Ministry or any court had authorised the present allocations. The 27% OBC reservation benchmark originates from the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), commonly known as the Mandal Commission case (officially the Second Backward Classes Commission, which shaped the 27% OBC reservation policy and triggered one of the largest social upheavals in post-independence India). It is a nationally accepted ceiling for Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations in central government jobs and educational institutions.
Audit and judicial records cited by oversight bodies add layers to the Commission’s concerns. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India in its Compliance Audit Report No. 5 of 2025 (period ending March 2023) flagged verification weaknesses in beneficiary data, inconsistent checks on caste and income certificates, and procedural lapses in the administration of backward-classes schemes. A September 2025 state work-study identified understaffing in the Backward Classes Development Department, and judicial scrutiny has been active: the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Kerala government and the Kerala State Commission for Backward Classes over delays in conducting the socio-economic studies necessary to revise the OBC list, a requirement the Kerala High Court has previously emphasised. Public reporting over several years has also highlighted gaps in OBC population data for the state and the absence of an up-to-date, state-wide socio-economic caste survey.
The Kerala examination follows precedents elsewhere in India that demonstrate how classification and certificate processes can be abused when data and procedures are weak. In West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court in May 2024 invalidated nearly 500,000 OBC certificates issued since 2010 after finding religion had been used as the principal criterion for inclusion. In Delhi, police investigations exposed a network that issued fake caste certificates with the complicity of local revenue officials. In Assam, a senior university official faced proceedings after an allegedly fraudulent OBC certificate was cancelled, and in Maharashtra, allegations surrounding fabricated “Kunbi” certificates prompted government action and disciplinary promises. Those verified episodes underscore the potential scale of misuse when caste-based entitlements are granted without transparent, evidence-based processes.
Kerala has not, to date, been shown to host a similar large-scale fraudulent certificate network. Nevertheless, the Commission noted that systemic vulnerabilities — incomplete census-style data on backward classes, failure to implement periodic socio-economic surveys, uneven verification of non-creamy-layer income thresholds and weak departmental capacity — create conditions in which irregularities could occur. The NCBC’s demand for documentary proof of the state’s faith-based allocations, therefore, serves both as a targeted inquiry and as a broader probe of administrative safeguards.
Historical case material has been referenced in the course of the review. Government and judicial records show earlier instances of certificate irregularities and disputed classifications in other jurisdictions, and a 2019 district inquiry into one senior officer’s OBC certificate in Kerala had previously reported discrepancies in income assessment for creamy-layer exclusion. Those past episodes, the Commission noted, illustrate the importance of standardised processes and rigorous verification. The NCBC has warned that reservation benefits extended without a clear statutory or empirical basis risk undermining constitutional protections for socially and educationally backward castes.
The procedural outcome now depends on the state’s response to the Commission’s written demands. The NCBC may examine the supplied documents and, if the replies fail to satisfy constitutional or evidentiary requirements, recommend corrective action ranging from reclassification and quota reallocation to referral to other administrative or judicial mechanisms. Kerala’s government has not yet published a comprehensive public rejoinder to the NCBC’s directive; officials presented papers to the Commission in late September but have not publicly clarified whether those submissions constitute the full basis for the allocations or indicate planned reforms.
Beyond the immediate contest over allocation, the case highlights policy trade-offs implicit in India’s reservation framework: the constitutional scheme aims at remedying caste-based social and educational disadvantage, yet the interplay of political pressures, religious identity claims and administrative weak-links has complicated implementation. For policy makers, the NCBC said, the remedy is procedural integrity — updated socio-economic data, standardised eligibility verification, transparent rules for classification and robust departmental capacity — so that reservation serves its remedial objective without being diverted for other aims. The 15-day deadline gives Kerala the opportunity to demonstrate such integrity; absent convincing documentation, the NCBC’s next steps may include formal recommendations for systemic correction.
– global bihari bureau
