Article 340

Article 340 of the Constitution of India empowers the President of India to appoint a Commission to investigate the social and educational conditions of the backward classes and to recommend measures for their advancement. This provision represents a cornerstone of India’s constitutional strategy to achieve social justice and equality of opportunity, particularly for those historically marginalised by social hierarchy and economic deprivation.
The article provides a structured mechanism for studying the nature and causes of backwardness and for formulating policies to promote the inclusion and welfare of socially and educationally disadvantaged groups.

Constitutional Provision and Objective

The text of Article 340 states that:

“The President may by order appoint a Commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to remove such difficulties and to improve their condition.”

The President may also specify:

• The composition of the Commission;
• The scope of its investigation; and
• The procedure to be followed in conducting its work.

After completion of its task, the Commission is required to submit a report to the President, who must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament along with a memorandum explaining the action taken on its recommendations.
The core objective of Article 340 is to provide a constitutional mechanism for identifying backward classes and for ensuring their educational and socio-economic upliftment through evidence-based policymaking.

Purpose and Scope of the Commission

The primary purpose of the Commission appointed under Article 340 is:

• To examine the social and educational conditions of the backward classes;
• To identify the difficulties and barriers faced by them in accessing education, employment, and social mobility;
• To recommend measures for removing these barriers; and
• To advise on the conditions for grants or welfare schemes for these communities.

This provision allows the Union and State Governments to design targeted policies and reservation schemes consistent with the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16.

Historical Background

The inclusion of Article 340 in the Constitution reflected the concern of the Constituent Assembly to address the deep-rooted social inequalities caused by the caste system and other historical factors. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and other framers of the Constitution recognised that mere formal equality was insufficient to achieve justice; positive action was necessary to uplift disadvantaged groups.
Since independence, several Commissions have been constituted under Article 340 to study and recommend measures for the advancement of backward classes. Among them, two have been particularly influential in shaping India’s reservation policies.

Major Commissions Established under Article 340

1. The First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar Commission, 1953)

• Established by: Presidential Order on 29 January 1953.
• Chairperson: Shri Kaka Kalelkar.
• Objective: To determine the criteria for identifying socially and educationally backward classes and to recommend steps for their advancement.
• Recommendations: The Commission suggested measures such as reservation in government jobs and educational institutions, scholarships, financial assistance, and land reforms.
• Outcome: The report, submitted in 1955, was not implemented. The Government argued that the Commission had relied too heavily on caste-based criteria rather than broader socio-economic indicators, leading to debates about the appropriate basis for defining backwardness.

2. The Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission, 1979)

• Established by: Presidential Order on 1 January 1979.
• Chairperson: Shri B. P. Mandal.
• Mandate: To identify socially and educationally backward classes and to consider measures for improving their status.
• Methodology: The Commission used eleven indicators of social, educational, and economic backwardness to identify Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
• Key Recommendations:
  • 27% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for OBCs.
  • Measures for improving educational facilities and representation in public life.
• Implementation: The recommendations were implemented in 1990 by the Union Government, following which they were upheld by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case.

3. Establishment of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC)

Based on the continuing need to monitor and evaluate the status of backward classes, the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) was created by an Act of Parliament in 1993 and later given constitutional status through the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018 under Article 338B.
The NCBC functions as a permanent constitutional body responsible for examining the inclusion and exclusion of groups from the Central List of OBCs and advising the government on matters concerning their welfare.

Parliamentary Oversight and Implementation

After receiving the report of a Commission appointed under Article 340, the President is required to:

• Lay the report before both Houses of Parliament, and
• Present an explanatory memorandum detailing the action taken or proposed on the recommendations.

This mechanism ensures transparency and legislative scrutiny of government action regarding backward class welfare.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Article 340 works in harmony with several other constitutional provisions aimed at achieving social and educational equality:

• Article 15(4): Empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
• Article 16(4): Allows reservation in public employment for any backward class not adequately represented in government services.
• Article 46: Directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other weaker sections.
• Article 338B: Establishes the National Commission for Backward Classes to monitor the implementation of safeguards and welfare schemes.

Together, these articles form the constitutional foundation for affirmative action in India.

Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Cases

Over time, the judiciary has played a decisive role in interpreting the constitutional principles related to backward class identification and reservation policy.

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): The Supreme Court upheld the Mandal Commission’s recommendations and validated the 27% reservation for OBCs, while also capping total reservations at 50%. The Court held that backwardness must be determined primarily on social and educational grounds, not economic factors alone.
• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): The Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservations but ruled that the State must produce quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency before providing reservation in promotions.
• Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008): The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional validity of OBC reservations in educational institutions under the 93rd Amendment but cautioned that the inclusion of creamy layer individuals should be excluded to ensure fairness.
• Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018): The Court clarified that identification of backward classes must rest on social and educational criteria, reaffirming the principle laid down in Indra Sawhney.

These judgments collectively reinforce the constitutional intent of balancing equality of opportunity with equity of representation.

Implementation and Policy Impact

The recommendations made under Article 340 have shaped India’s reservation policy and affirmative action framework in education, employment, and political representation.
The Mandal Commission’s recommendations, in particular, transformed India’s socio-political landscape by institutionalising 27% reservation for OBCs in central government employment and later extending similar provisions to educational institutions.
The ongoing work of the National Commission for Backward Classes ensures that the identification of backward classes remains dynamic, reflecting changing socio-economic realities.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its progressive aims, the operation of Article 340 and the reservation framework faces several challenges:

• Complexity in identifying backward classes, given regional variations and multiple criteria.
• Political manipulation of backward class lists for electoral gains.
• Demand for periodic review to reflect changes in socio-economic status.
• Persistent inequality within backward classes, where benefits are often cornered by relatively better-off subgroups (the “creamy layer”).

To address these challenges, continuous assessment and data-based evaluation are essential to maintain the integrity and fairness of affirmative action policies.