The formulation of lists for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in India is a complex process rooted in historical efforts to address social and educational backwardness, evolving significantly over time at both state and national levels.

Historical Context:

1. Pre-Independence Era: The concept of identifying and providing special provisions for 'backward classes' predates independence. Various princely states and British provinces had their own lists and policies, often based on caste and occupation, to address historical disadvantages.
2. Post-Independence and Constitutional Mandate: The Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 15(4) and 16(4), empowered the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. Article 340 mandated the appointment of a commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes.
3. Kaka Kalelkar Commission (1953): The First Backward Classes Commission, chaired by Kaka Kalelkar, submitted its report in 1955. It identified 2,399 castes as backward, with 837 among them as 'most backward'. However, its recommendations, particularly the use of caste as a primary criterion, were not fully accepted by the government due to internal disagreements and concerns about perpetuating caste divisions.
4. Mandal Commission (1979): The Second Backward Classes Commission, headed by B.P. Mandal, was appointed in 1979. Its report, submitted in 1980, identified 3,743 castes and communities as socially and educationally backward, constituting 52% of the population (excluding SCs/STs). It recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in central government services and public sector undertakings. The implementation of these recommendations in 1990 led to widespread protests and legal challenges.
5. Supreme Court Judgments (Indra Sawhney Case, 1992): The landmark Indra Sawhney & Others vs. Union of India case upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs but introduced the 'creamy layer' concept, excluding economically advanced individuals from backward classes from reservation benefits. It also mandated the establishment of permanent statutory bodies to examine requests for inclusion and exclusion from OBC lists.

Methods of Formulating OBC Lists:

At the National Level:

1. National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC): Following the Indra Sawhney judgment, the NCBC was established in 1993 as a statutory body. Initially, it had the power to examine requests for inclusion and exclusion from the Central List of OBCs. In 2018, it was granted constitutional status (Article 338B), giving it powers similar to the National Commissions for SCs and STs.
2. Criteria for Inclusion: The NCBC primarily uses social, educational, and economic indicators to determine backwardness. While caste is a significant factor, it is not the sole determinant. Other indicators include traditional occupation, literacy rates, representation in government services, and poverty levels. The Commission conducts detailed inquiries, public hearings, and consultations with state governments and community representatives.
3. Creamy Layer Exclusion: The concept of the 'creamy layer' is applied to ensure that reservation benefits reach the genuinely backward. Individuals from OBC communities whose parents have a certain level of income or hold specific high-ranking positions (e.g., IAS, IPS, Class I officers, professionals, high-income businesspersons) are excluded from reservation benefits.
4. Parliamentary Process: Based on the NCBC's recommendations, the Central Government proposes additions or deletions to the Central List of OBCs. These changes are then approved by the Union Cabinet and notified by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, often requiring parliamentary approval for significant amendments.

At the State Level:

1. State Backward Classes Commissions: Most states have established their own State Backward Classes Commissions, often mirroring the structure and functions of the NCBC. These commissions are responsible for identifying and recommending castes/communities for inclusion or exclusion from the State List of OBCs.
2. State-Specific Criteria: While generally aligning with the national framework, state commissions may adopt specific criteria relevant to their local social, economic, and cultural contexts. This can lead to variations in the composition of OBC lists between states.
3. Public Hearings and Surveys: State commissions conduct extensive surveys, public hearings, and consultations with various communities, experts, and government departments to gather data and assess backwardness.
4. State Government and Legislature: Recommendations from the State Backward Classes Commissions are submitted to the respective state governments. The state government, after due consideration, issues notifications for changes to the State List of OBCs, which may also require approval from the state legislature.
5. Variations and Overlaps: It's important to note that a community listed as OBC at the state level may not necessarily be on the Central List, and vice-versa. This can create complexities in accessing benefits depending on the level of government (state or central) providing the reservation.

In summary, the process of identifying OBCs is a dynamic and evolving one, balancing historical injustices with contemporary socioeconomic realities, guided by constitutional principles, judicial pronouncements, and the continuous work of dedicated commissions at both national and state levels.