The Constitution of India
Article 340
Appointment of a Commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes
(1) The President may by order appoint a Commission consisting of such persons as he thinks fit 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 and as to the grants that should be made for the purpose by the Union or any State and the conditions subject to which such grants should be made, and the order appointing such Commission shall define the procedure to be followed by the Commission.
(2) A Commission so appointed shall investigate the matters referred to them and present to the President a report setting out the facts as found by them and making such recommendations as they think proper.
(3) The President shall cause a copy of the report so presented together with a memorandum explaining the action taken thereon to be laid before each House of Parliament.
Why this exists
India's Constitution-makers recognised deep social and educational disadvantages faced by certain communities due to caste and historical discrimination. Article 340 gives the government a formal, fact-finding mechanism—an expert commission—to identify who these backward classes are and what concrete steps and financial support could help them, rather than leaving such decisions to guesswork or political pressure alone. It also builds in accountability by requiring the report and the government's response to be shown to Parliament.
How courts read it
The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) arose directly from a Commission set up under this Article—the Mandal Commission (headed by B.P. Mandal), whose 1980 report recommended 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs. The Court upheld the reservation but laid down limits, such as excluding the 'creamy layer' and capping total reservations generally at 50%. Courts have treated the commission's findings as important evidence of backwardness, while still reserving the power to judicially review whether classifications and quotas are reasonable.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Article 340 itself creates reservations or quotas for OBCs.
Fact: Article 340 only allows setting up a fact-finding commission and requires its report to be presented to Parliament; actual reservations are implemented through separate government policies and laws, later tested in court (as in Indra Sawhney). - Myth: The government must always accept and implement whatever the commission recommends.
Fact: The Article only requires the report and a memorandum on action taken to be laid before Parliament—it does not obligate the government to adopt every recommendation.