What Happened
- The Congress party accused the Centre of "deliberate deceit" over the delimitation bills, claiming the government had earlier assured Parliament that any Lok Sabha expansion would result in a uniform proportionate increase for all states — an assurance it now appears to be abandoning.
- Congress alleged the bills are designed to avoid conducting a caste census, which would reveal OBC population data and strengthen demands for OBC sub-quotas within the women's reservation framework.
- The party charged that without a caste census, OBC women — who represent the largest segment of women in India — will effectively be marginalised within the 33% women's reservation mandated by the 106th Amendment.
- Draft bills, according to Congress, contradicted earlier written assurances given to opposition parties during consultations on the 106th Amendment in 2023.
- Congress called for the bills to be sent to a Select Committee or Joint Parliamentary Committee for wider deliberation before passage.
Static Topic Bridges
The 106th Amendment and the Caste Census Connection
The Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 reserved 33% of seats in Lok Sabha and state assemblies for women. However, it did not specify a sub-quota for OBC women within this 33%. This omission is politically significant because OBC women, who are estimated to constitute over 40% of India's female population, have no guaranteed share within the women's reservation. A caste census would produce verified OBC population data, enabling a legally defensible sub-quota. Congress argues the government's choice to push delimitation before a caste census is a deliberate sequencing decision that protects upper-caste representation within the women's quota.
- 106th Amendment: 33% reservation for women in Lok Sabha + state assemblies
- No OBC sub-quota: The amendment is silent on internal categories within women's 33%
- Mandal Commission (1980): Estimated OBC population at ~52%; recommended 27% reservation in central services
- SC Judgment: In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), Supreme Court upheld 27% OBC quota but capped total reservation at 50%
- 2011 SECC (Socio-Economic and Caste Census): Data on economic backwardness released; caste data held back
Connection to this news: By not conducting a caste census before delimitation, Congress argues, the government ensures the OBC population remains undocumented — preventing a legitimate constitutional claim for OBC sub-quotas within women's reservation.
Caste Census: Constitutional and Political Dimensions
A caste census (enumeration of castes as part of the decennial census) was last conducted in 1931 under British India. Post-independence, the census has only counted SC and ST populations (required for constitutional reservation purposes). In 2011, the Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) was conducted, but caste-wise data was not publicly released for OBCs. Several state governments (Bihar, Telangana, Karnataka) have conducted their own state-level caste surveys since 2023. In the Supreme Court's case on OBC sub-quotas in Punjab and Haryana (2024), the Court recognised that sub-classification within reserved categories is permissible.
- Last national caste census: 1931 (British India)
- 2011 SECC: Caste data collected but OBC enumeration withheld from public domain
- Bihar caste survey (2023): Found OBCs + EBCs constitute ~63% of Bihar's population
- Karnataka OBC survey (2024): Found OBCs at ~70% of state population
- Supreme Court in Panjab v. Davinder Singh (2024): Sub-classification within SC reservation permissible by state
Connection to this news: Congress uses these state-level data points to argue that a national caste census is politically feasible and constitutionally necessary before finalising reservation structures — and that the Centre's avoidance of it is deliberate.
Delimitation and the Assurance of Proportionate Gains
During the 2023 passage of the 106th Amendment, the government reportedly provided oral and written assurances to opposition parties that any Lok Sabha expansion would result in proportionate seat increases for all states — i.e., every state's seat count would rise uniformly rather than some gaining disproportionately. The 131st Amendment Bill, 2026, however, uses 2011 census-based population ratios, which means high-population northern states gain far more seats both in absolute and proportional terms.
- Proportionate increase model: Each state's seat count rises by same percentage (protects relative representation)
- Population-proportional model: Seats allocated strictly by population share (advantages high-growth states)
- Congress claim: 2023 assurances promised proportionate model
- 2026 bills: Use population-proportional model (via 2011 census ratios)
- UP projection: 80 → 138 (72.5% increase); Tamil Nadu: 39 → 50 (28% increase) — not proportionate
Connection to this news: Congress frames this as a breach of parliamentary trust — a constitutional amendment (106th) was passed with cross-party support based on certain understandings about future delimitation, which the government is now unilaterally revising.
OBC Reservation: Constitutional and Policy Framework
Other Backward Classes (OBCs) are identified under Article 340 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to appoint a Commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes. The Mandal Commission (1980) recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in central services, implemented in 1990. The 102nd Amendment (2018) established the National Commission for Backward Classes as a constitutional body under Article 338B. The 105th Amendment (2021) restored states' power to identify OBC lists for state reservations, overturning a Supreme Court ruling.
- Article 340: President's power to appoint Backward Classes Commission
- Article 338B: National Commission for Backward Classes (inserted by 102nd Amendment, 2018)
- Mandal Commission, 1980: 27% OBC reservation; implemented by VP Singh government in 1990
- Indra Sawhney judgment (1992): Upheld 27% OBC quota; capped total reservation at 50%
- 105th Amendment (2021): Restored states' power to prepare OBC lists after Maratha reservation case
Connection to this news: The absence of updated national OBC data means no court-proof sub-quota for OBC women within the 33% women's reservation can be crafted — which Congress argues is the deliberate outcome the government seeks by avoiding a caste census.
Key Facts & Data
- 106th Amendment (2023): 33% women's reservation; no OBC sub-quota specified
- Last national caste census: 1931 (British India)
- 2011 SECC: Caste data collected but OBC numbers not publicly released
- Bihar caste survey (2023): OBCs + EBCs ~63% of state population
- Mandal Commission OBC estimate: ~52% of India's population
- Congress demand: Caste census before delimitation; OBC sub-quota within women's 33%
- Article 340: Constitutional basis for backward class inquiry
- 102nd Amendment, 2018: National Commission for Backward Classes made constitutional body
- Congress's charge: Bills contradict 2023 assurances of uniform proportionate seat increase for all states