Debate: Caste-Based Surveys

The recent nationwide discussions on caste-based surveys and reservations have ignited debates regarding reservation limits.
While many call for a similar census across India, Tamil Nadu’s history offers insights into the complexities of caste-based reservations.
Despite previous efforts, the implementation of OBC (Other Backward Class) reservations remains a challenge in the state.

Genesis of Ramachandran Commission

Background: The First BC panel (1969-70), led by A.N. Sattanathan, suggested raising BC reservations, but the idea of a creamy layer hasn’t gained political backing.
Current Backdrop: In 1980, following electoral setbacks, the government in Tamil Nadu, led by M.G. Ramachandran, increased BC (Backward Class) reservations from 31% to 50%, totalling 68% with SC & ST reservations (later 69% with ST exclusive reservation).
Legal Challenge: The move faced legal challenges, prompting the state government to form a commission to review BC enumeration and classification.
Commission Formation: The Second BC Commission, chaired by J.A. Ambasankar, was established in late 1982 and submitted its report in February 1985.

Socio-Educational-cum-Economic Survey: The Commission conducted a comprehensive door-to-door enumeration of BCs in two stages during 1983-84. Unlike the previous panel, which relied on the 1921 Census, this survey was based on contemporary data.
Caste Classification: The Commission identified 298 BC communities within main groups such as BCs, Most BCs, Denotified Communities (DNCs), SCs, STs, and others. BCs constituted 67.15% of the state’s population.
Educational Survey: A sample survey of students in schools and colleges was conducted, along with an assessment of BC representation in public services.

Reservation Quantum Debate: Disagreements arose between Chairman Ambasankar and other members regarding the reservation percentage. While Ambasankar proposed reducing it to 32% to stay within the 50% limit, dissenting members argued for at least 50% due to the BC population’s size.
Reservation Coverage: Differences also emerged regarding the coverage of reservations. Ambasankar suggested separate lists of BCs for Article 15(4) and Article 16(4), while members favored a single list.

No Change in Reservation Quantum: The government retained the 50% BC reservation and did not accept Ambasankar’s recommendation to reduce it.
Ninth Schedule: To safeguard the 69% quota, Tamil Nadu enacted a law and placed it under the Ninth Schedule following the Supreme Court’s Mandal Commission case judgment in 1992.
Subsequent Changes: Over the years, separate quotas for Muslims and Christians were introduced within the BC reservation, but some were later withdrawn or challenged.
SC Verdict: In 2021, the Supreme Court struck down a law providing 10.5% reservation for Vanniyars within the MBC quota, citing non-contemporaneous data from the Ambasankar panel.

Tamil Nadu’s experience with caste-based reservations underscores the intricate challenges involved. While the state has maintained a high reservation percentage, debates over quantum and coverage persist.
The recent legal developments highlight the importance of contemporary data in determining and sustaining reservations, making it a complex and evolving issue.