New Delhi, 23 February 2026: The Supreme Court of India on Monday took up a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to extend Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation benefits to Pasmanda Muslims a term used to collectively describe socially and economically marginalised Muslim sub-groups — but refrained from immediate substantive orders, instead posting the matter for detailed hearing after four weeks.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the plea, filed by Mohd Waseem Saifi (W.P.(C) No. 230/2026), which urges that Pasmanda Muslims be sub-categorized within the OBC quota and granted a 10 per cent reservation in education and employment in line with recommendations of the Sachar Committee and the Ranganath Misra Commission.
The petition frames Pasmanda Muslims broadly encompassing Ajlaf (OBC-level) and Arzal (Dalit-like) Muslim communities as historically disadvantaged groups who lag significantly behind in education, employment, and political representation, despite constituting a large share of India’s Muslim population. It refers to the Sachar Committee Report (2006), which documented systemic socio-economic deprivation of Muslim sub-communities, and the Ranganath Misra Commission’s suggestion for targeted affirmative action.
The reliefs sought include directing the Union and State Governments to implement 10 per cent OBC sub-quota for Pasmanda Muslim, seeking implementation of Sachar Committee recommendations and asking establishment of a statutory commission to identify and monitor backwardness within Muslim communities for affirmative measures.
During the brief hearing, the CJI posed pointed questions about the criteria for backwardness, underscoring that defining social and economic backwardness is not solely a religious or caste determination, and that the Court must be satisfied such groups are distinctly backward even within the broader OBC classificatory framework. The Bench queried:
“What about the other Muslim OBCs? … OBC is not only a social status factor, but an economic factor is also there.”
The Court also noted that reservation policy formulation raises complex constitutional and policy questions, and that merely placing a community within a reserved category demands reliable empirical data demonstrating backwardness, representation gaps, and exclusionary disadvantage.
Recognising these wider issues, the Bench allowed four weeks’ time for the petitioner to file a detailed note addressing the statistical and legal questions raised by the Court.
Reservation in India must be grounded in constitutional authority. The Ninety-third Amendment to the Constitution empowers the State to make special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes under Article 15(5) and Article 16(4), including OBCs.
However, reservation cannot be granted purely on religious grounds; it is anchored in backwardness, lack of representation, and exclusion as objective criteria. Courts have repeatedly held that classification must be supported by quantifiable evidence of disadvantage and not be arbitrary. Landmark cases such as Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (the Mandal case) established that reservation must be based on backwardness and not religion alone, and that the 50 per cent ceiling acts as a general cap unless exceptional circumstances justify departure.
In the past, some State decisions to include Muslim communities in OBC lists have faced judicial scrutiny. For instance, the Calcutta High Court’s examination of Muslim OBC inclusion highlighted the constitutional complexity of backward class classification, emphasising objective backwardness assessments rather than community identity alone.
Reservation for religious minorities, especially within the OBC framework, remains politically and legally sensitive. Critics argue that religion cannot be the sole basis for affirmative action without robust socio-economic data, while proponents maintain that groups like the Pasmandas face systemic discrimination that merits targeted state action. Reports indicate that sub-classifications in reservation categories — including within Scheduled Castes and Tribes have recently been upheld by the Supreme Court in other contexts, suggesting judicial receptivity to nuanced affirmative action models provided they are constitutionally grounded.
Moreover, the ongoing national discourse on caste enumeration through a caste census has given fresh impetus to calls for data-driven reservation policymaking, which could impact how backward classes are identified and included in constitutional schemes.
The Supreme Court’s decision to defer detailed consideration rather than dismiss the plea outright reflects the complexities inherent in reservation jurisprudence. The Court has signalled that reservation policy, especially involving sub-classification and inclusion of minority sub-groups, requires careful legal and empirical analysis beyond broad social claims. The plea’s success will likely hinge on presenting convincing data on socio-economic deprivation and representation deficits among Pasmanda Muslims. Any move to extend OBC benefits must conform to Articles 15(5) and 16(4) and established benchmarks of reasoned classification and proportionality.
The matter now awaits a detailed hearing in which the petitioner will address statistical backwardness, criteria for sub-categorisation, and constitutional permissibility of extending OBC reservation to specific Muslim sub-communities. Given the Supreme Court’s cautious approach, the case could ultimately clarify the interface between affirmative action, backward class identification, and constitutional equality rights under Indian law potentially setting a precedent for future claims by marginalised groups.
If you’d like, I can also explain the key constitutional tests applied by Indian courts when deciding whether a class qualifies for reservation benefits.
