The Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2021 clarified/restored the constitutional power of:
States and Union Territories
to:
Prepare and maintain their own lists of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) for their own purposes.
It primarily amended:
105th Amendment, 2021 → State/UT SEBC Lists + Central List Preserved + Response to Maratha Reservation Judgment + Federalism in Reservation Policy.
The 105th Amendment must be understood together with the:
102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018.
The 102nd Amendment:
A later Supreme Court interpretation created uncertainty over:
Whether States could independently identify SEBCs for their own reservation purposes.
Before the 102nd Amendment:
States had their own systems/lists for identifying backward classes for State purposes.
There was also:
A Central List
for Central Government purposes.
State-level and Central-level lists could differ.
The 102nd Amendment constitutionalised the:
National Commission for Backward Classes.
It also created Article:
342A.
The original 2018 wording was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the:
Maratha Reservation case, 2021.
The Supreme Court considered:
Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra, 2021.
Commonly known as:
Maratha Reservation Case.
The Court interpreted the post-102nd constitutional framework as meaning that:
The President's specification under Article 342A concerned SEBC identification under the constitutional framework, with Parliament controlling the Central List.
This created concern regarding:
State power to identify SEBCs for their own reservation policies.
States argued that:
Social and educational backwardness varies across regions.
Therefore:
States require constitutional authority to identify groups that are backward within their own State context.
Parliament enacted the:
105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021.
To:
Restore/clarify State and Union Territory authority to prepare and maintain their own SEBC lists for their own purposes.
The 105th Amendment modified:
Article 342A.
The current Article 342A provides a distinction between:
SEBCs:
For purposes of the Central Government.
Every State or Union Territory may:
By law, prepare and maintain its own list of SEBCs for its own purposes.
The entries may:
Differ from the Central List.
This is explicitly reflected in the current constitutional text. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Used for:
Central Government purposes.
Prepared and maintained:
For the Central Government.
Used for:
State/UT purposes.
Prepared and maintained:
By the respective State/UT through law.
The two lists:
Can be different.
The most important provision added by the 105th Amendment is effectively:
Every State or Union Territory may, by law, prepare and maintain, for its own purposes, a list of socially and educationally backward classes.
342A(3) = State/UT SEBC List.
The amendment restores:
Federal flexibility
in social-justice policy.
One national list ≠ Every State's social reality.
The 105th Amendment also amended:
Article 338B.
It clarified that the constitutional consultation requirement concerning the:
National Commission for Backward Classes
does not apply to the State/UT list-making power under:
Article 342A(3).
If every State's own SEBC list required the same consultation framework involving the NCBC, it could:
Undermine the constitutional autonomy specifically restored to States and UTs.
Article 338B was modified to:
Accommodate the State/UT list-making authority under Article 342A(3).
The amendment also modified:
Article 366(26C).
The definition of:
"Socially and educationally backward classes"
was adjusted so that the expression applies:
For the Central Government or for the State/Union Territory, as the case may be.
The definition now accommodates:
Both Central and State/UT purposes.
→ NCBC.
→ SEBC identification framework.
→ Definition of SEBC.
→ NCBC constitutional status.
→ Original Article 342A framework.
→ Clarified/restored State/UT power to maintain their own SEBC lists.
The 105th Amendment:
❌ Did not create a new reservation percentage.
❌ Did not create OBC reservation.
❌ Did not introduce EWS reservation.
It primarily dealt with:
Who has constitutional authority to identify SEBCs for different purposes.
Identification of a backward class:
Is different from
determining:
The percentage of reservation.
105th Amendment:
Identifies authority.
It does not itself:
Impose a reservation quota.
States can use their own SEBC lists for:
subject to:
Constitutional and judicial limitations.
The Central List continues to be relevant for:
The 105th Amendment did not abolish:
The Central List of SEBCs.
It created/confirmed:
Parallel constitutional space for State/UT lists.
The amendment is particularly important for:
Cooperative and differentiated federalism.
→ Central List.
→ Their own lists.
Backwardness can vary because of:
The amendment supports:
Context-sensitive social justice.
Equal treatment:
≠
Identical classification across every State.
The State can classify groups for affirmative action when:
Constitutional requirements are satisfied.
Different State lists must remain subject to:
Article 15(4) permits special provisions for:
State-specific SEBC identification can support:
State educational reservation policies.
Article 16(4) concerns:
Reservation in public employment for backward classes of citizens
that, in the State's opinion, are:
Not adequately represented in State services.
The amendment supports:
State-level identification
within the broader constitutional framework of:
Article 16(4).
The 105th Amendment did not abolish:
National Commission for Backward Classes.
NCBC remains:
A constitutional body under Article 338B.
→ Constitutional body.
→ National/Central-level functions.
→ Created under State law.
→ State-level advisory/investigative role.
The 105th Amendment:
Did not eliminate State Commissions.
A State may have:
Its own State Backward Classes Commission
while also:
Maintaining a State SEBC list.
The Central Government maintains:
The Central List.
The Maratha case demonstrated that:
Reservation policy can become a federal constitutional issue.
Because identification of backward classes directly affects:
The sequence is:
102nd Amendment → Maratha Judgment → Federal controversy → 105th Amendment.
The amendment:
Strengthens States' role in social-justice policy.
It allows:
Region-specific identification of disadvantaged groups.
It clarifies:
Division of responsibilities between Union and States.
It makes it possible to maintain:
Separate Central and State SEBC lists.
State-specific lists allow:
State governments and legislatures to respond to local social realities.
Different Central and State lists can create:
Administrative complexity.
SEBC identification may become:
Politically sensitive.
States may use:
Different methodologies and classifications.
This can make comparisons across States difficult.
State lists are not immune from:
Constitutional scrutiny.
Creating a State SEBC list does not automatically permit:
Unlimited reservation.
Reservation remains subject to:
Constitutional and judicial principles.
The foundational reservation judgment:
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992.
Important principles include:
The 105th Amendment:
Does not abolish the broader constitutional principles developed in Indra Sawhney.
It mainly clarifies:
Who can identify SEBCs for specific governmental purposes.
→ EWS.
→ State/UT SEBC identification.
EWS and SEBC are:
Distinct constitutional categories.
→ State/UT SEBC lists.
→ Women's legislative reservation.
105 → State Backward Classes.
106 → Women.
→ SC/ST legislative reservation extension.
→ SEBC identification.
2021.
Restore/clarify State and UT power to identify SEBCs for their own purposes.
Article 342A.
Article 338B. Article 366(26C).
State/UT power to prepare and maintain own SEBC list.
Maintained for Central Government purposes.
For State/UT own purposes.
May differ.
Continues as constitutional body.
2021.
Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra.
2018.
2021.
The 105th Amendment created NCBC.
❌ Wrong.
NCBC constitutional status:
102nd Amendment.
The 105th Amendment abolished the Central List.
❌ Wrong.
The:
Central List remains.
Only Parliament can now identify SEBCs.
❌ Wrong.
States and UTs can:
Prepare and maintain their own SEBC lists for their own purposes.
State and Central SEBC lists must be identical.
❌ Wrong.
The Constitution expressly allows:
State/UT entries to differ from the Central List.
The 105th Amendment introduced EWS reservation.
❌ Wrong.
EWS:
103rd Amendment.
The 105th Amendment introduced OBC reservation.
❌ Wrong.
It concerns:
Identification/list-making authority.
State SEBC lists are constitutionally immune from judicial review.
❌ Wrong.
They remain subject to:
Constitutional scrutiny.
The amendment gives States unlimited reservation power.
❌ Wrong.
Identification of SEBCs:
Does not eliminate other constitutional limits on reservation.
Article 342A is only about the Central List.
❌ Incomplete.
It now contains:
Central List framework + State/UT own-list authority.
Article 338B was deleted.
❌ Wrong.
NCBC remains under:
Article 338B.
105th Amendment changed Article 15(4).
❌ Wrong.
Its principal changes were:
Articles 338B, 342A and 366(26C).
The 105th Amendment overturned Indra Sawhney.
❌ Wrong.
It did not abolish the broader reservation jurisprudence.
Indra Sawhney.
NCBC established as statutory body.
102nd Amendment.
→ NCBC constitutional status.
→ Article 342A.
Maratha Reservation judgment.
105th Amendment.
→ State/UT SEBC list power clarified/restored.
1992 → Indra Sawhney.
1993 → Statutory NCBC.
102nd → Constitutional NCBC.
Maratha case → State-power controversy.
105th → State/UT lists.
338 → NCSC.
338A → NCST.
338B → NCBC.
342 → Scheduled Tribes.
342A → SEBC.
366(26C) → SEBC definition.
Central List → Union Government.
State List → State Government.
UT List → Union Territory's own purposes, through law.
Central List = National purpose.
State/UT List = Local/federal purpose.
Identification → Reservation policy → Representation → Substantive equality.
Identification:
≠
Automatic entitlement to a particular quota.
→ Restores State role.
→ Region-specific backward-class recognition.
→ Clarifies division of authority.
→ Separate Central and State lists.
The 105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021 was enacted following the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 102nd Amendment in the Maratha Reservation case. It clarified that States and Union Territories can prepare and maintain their own lists of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes for their own purposes while preserving the Central List for Union purposes.
102nd Amendment → NCBC constitutional status.
Maratha judgment → State identification controversy.
105th → Federal clarification.
The 105th Amendment represents a constitutional balance between nationally coordinated social-justice policy and India's federal diversity. It recognises that backwardness can have regional characteristics while maintaining a separate Central List for Union purposes.
