Overview : In a heated session of the Rajya Sabha , BJP MP K. Laxman accused several opposition‑ruled states of diluting the spirit of reservation system by granting OBC quotas to Muslim communities. He argued that such moves contravene the Constitution , which does not permit reservations on religious grounds. Key Developments Laxman singled out Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala and Telangana for allegedly extending OBC benefits to Muslims. He claimed Karnataka treats the entire Muslim community as a single caste with a dedicated 4% quota . West Bengal is said to have included “97% of Muslim communities” in its OBC list. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have reportedly granted substantial OBC benefits to Muslim groups. Telangana’s attempt to create an exclusive 4% Muslim quota was struck down by the High Court . Opposition members staged a walkout after their interjections were denied by Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan. Union Health Minister J.P. Nadda defended Laxman’s remarks, accusing the opposition of vote‑bank politics. Important Facts The Constitution, under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), allows affirmative action for socially and educationally backward classes but explicitly bars discrimination or preference based on religion. B.R. Ambedkar himself emphasized that reservations should be rooted in backwardness, not faith. State governments have the authority to identify and list OBCs, but any inclusion must satisfy the criteria of social and educational backwardness, as examined by the High Court or the Supreme Court. UPSC Relevance Understanding the interplay between reservation policy, constitutional provisions, and political narratives is essential for GS Paper II (Polity) and GS Paper III (Society & Social Justice). Candidates should be able to discuss: The constitutional basis for affirmative action and its limits. The role of the judiciary in reviewing state‑level reservation lists. How political parties use reservation debates for electoral mobilisation. The impact of religion‑based claims on social cohesion and policy formulation. Way Forward Experts suggest a two‑pronged approach: (1) a comprehensive review by the Centre, possibly through the Union Health Minister or the Ministry of Social Justice, to ensure that OBC lists are based solely on backwardness criteria; (2) a judicial clarification, perhaps via a Supreme Court bench, on whether any religious factor can be considered in OBC identification. Strengthening data‑driven assessments and transparent state‑centre coordination could mitigate politicised quota extensions and preserve the constitutional ethos of affirmative action.