The Calcutta High Court has struck down the OBC reservations granted by the State of West Bengal between 2010 and 2012. A Division Bench of the High Court has also struck down two orders issued in 2010 and 2012 by the Government Of West Bengal Backward Classes Welfare Department sub-classifying 143 classes and some provisions of the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than SC and ST) (Reservation in Posts) Act of 2012.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
WEST BENGAL: The Calcutta High Court invalidated the Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations granted by the State of West Bengal between 2010 and 2012. A Division Bench of the High Court also annulled two orders issued in 2010 and 2012 by the Government of West Bengal’s Backward Classes Welfare Department, which sub-classified 143 classes. Additionally, certain provisions of the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than SC and ST) (Reservation in Posts) Act of 2012 were struck down.
In its judgment, the Court explicitly stated that the decision is prospective. From the date of the pronouncement of the judgment, citizens from the 114 (77+37) OBC classes cannot be appointed under state services or derive any other reservation benefits for the purposes of Article 16(4) of the Constitution until the Backward Classes Commission and the State conduct a fresh exercise for the purposes of Article 16(4) in accordance with the law.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, quashed the executive orders by the State classifying 42 classes as OBCs in 2010 and an executive order of 2012 classifying 35 classes as OBCs for reservation purposes under Article 16(4), with prospective effect. The Court clarified that citizens already employed based on the quashed reservations would not be affected by the judgment.
The judgment comprises two separate opinions: the primary opinion authored by Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and a concurring opinion by Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty. Senior Advocates Guru Krishna Kumar and L.K. Gupta represented the petitioners, while Advocate General Kishore Datta represented the State.
Deputy Solicitor Generals Dhiraj Kr. Trivedi and Billwadal Bhattacharya appeared for the National Commission for Backward Classes, and Assistant Advocate General Samrat Sen represented the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes.
“This Court is of the view that the selection of 77 classes of Muslims as Backward is an affront to the Muslim Community as a whole. This Court’s mind is not free from doubt that the said community has been treated as a commodity for political ends. This is clear from the chain of events that led to the classification of the 77 Classes as OBCs and their inclusion to be treated as a vote bank,”
-the Court held on the issue of reservation to Muslims on the basis of religion. The Court also held that identifying classes within the community as OBCs for electoral gains would leave them at the mercy of the concerned political establishment and may defeat and deny other rights.
“Such reservation is therefore also an affront to Democracy and the Constitution of India as a whole,”
-the Court added.
The Court struck down the second part of Section 2(h), Section 16, and Section 5(a) of the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than SC and ST) (Reservation in Posts) Act of 2012 while reading down Section 2(f) and the proviso to Section 5(a) of the said Act.
While reservations granted to 35 classes were nullified due to the invalidation of the 2012 statute, 77 classes lost their reservations because of the annulment of government orders passed between 2010 and 2012.
“The services of citizens from the 77 classes and 37 classes (added in the exercise of Section 16) struck down above, who are already in the service of the State, or have already availed the benefit of reservation or have succeeded in any selection process in the State, shall not be affected by the reason of this judgment,”
-the Court clarified in its judgment.
The Court held that the executive orders classifying 66 classes as OBCs prior to 2010 would not be interfered with since they were not challenged. The Court found that the Commission had made recommendations for reservation based on “religion only.”
Criticizing the State Commission for its reports, the Court observed,
“The real purpose of the Commission was to grant religion-specific reservation; however, the reports have been prepared to press into service the ostensible purpose of granting reservation to the backward classes.”
The Court held that no effective public hearings were notified by the Commission before making its recommendations. The Court noted many deficiencies in the Commission’s reports.
While rejecting the State’s objections to the maintainability of the writ petitions, the Court held that
“the right to reservation and to continue to enjoy reservation does not crystallize as a right much less a fundamental right, even after the grant of reservation to a class. The said affected classes need not have been impleaded in these proceedings.”
Case Title:
Amal Chandra Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on TMC
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
