Today, On 28th July, The Supreme Court stayed the Calcutta High Court’s order blocking West Bengal’s OBC list, calling it surprising and erroneous. “How can the High Court stay like this?” the bench slammed while staying the high court’s order.
The Supreme Court on Monday put a stay on the Calcutta High Court’s interim order that had stayed the state’s OBC list.
A bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai remarked that the high court’s decision was “prima facie erroneous” and questioned its rationale, stating,
“How could the High Court have done that?”
The Supreme Court also issued a notice regarding the West Bengal government’s appeal against the high court’s ruling.
Also Read: Bengal’s New OBC List Halted by Calcutta High Court Amid Legal and Political Storm
CJI Gavai added when the matter was presented,
“We will issue notice in this. This is surprising! How can the High Court stay like this? Reservation is part of the executive functions. This is the settled law right from Indira Sawhney, the position is that the executive can do it. Executive instructions are enough for providing reservations and legislation is not necessary. We are surprised…What is the High Court’s reasoning!”
The Chief Justice expressed disagreement with the High Court’s claim that the State was required to present survey reports and bills to the legislature for formal amendment under the 2012 Act governing backward class identification in West Bengal.
Also Read: Supreme Court to Hear Urgent Plea on 27% OBC Quota in Madhya Pradesh
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State, requested the bench to stay the High Court’s order, emphasizing that numerous appointments and promotions were pending due to the stay. He also mentioned that contempt petitions had been filed in the High Court as a result of the contested order.
In response to the court’s suggestion to let the High Court expedite the matter before a new bench, the respondents’ counsel Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar and Guru Krishnakumar opposed this and chose to present their arguments directly before the Supreme Court.
They contended that the new list was created without sufficient data and violated the procedures outlined in the State’s own legislation.
Sibal countered this argument, asserting that the list was generated following a new survey and report from the State Backward Classes Commission.
He argued,
“Even the High Court does not dispute that the Commission has conducted the exercise,”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order, deeming it “prima facie erroneous,” while noting that the correctness of the methodology used by the Commission would be assessed in due course.
The bench stated,
“The commission has followed some methodology. It may be correct or not correct, that will be decided by the High Court finally.”
This case stems from a May 2024 decision by the Calcutta High Court, which had invalidated the inclusion of 77 communities in the OBC list due to insufficient justification.
In response, the West Bengal government informed the Supreme Court that the State Backward Classes Commission would undertake a new identification exercise.
The notifications in question reflect the results of that process.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal vs. Purabi Das
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 17422/2025 and connected cases