[BREAKING] OBC Reservation Case | "Calcutta HC Wants To Run State; All This Because These Are Muslims?": WB To SC

The West Bengal government Today (August 5th) hit out at the Calcutta High Court for its critical remarks against the State while quashing a decision to identify various classes in the State as Other Backward Classes (OBC). The High Court in May had observed that the Muslim community was treated as a “commodity for political ends” when the government classified 77 classes of Muslims as backward.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

[BREAKING] OBC Reservation Case | "Calcutta HC Wants to Run State; All This Because These Are Muslims?": WB to SC

NEW DELHI: The West Bengal government on Monday sharply criticized the Calcutta High Court for its adverse comments while overturning the State’s decision to classify various groups as Other Backward Classes (OBC).

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the West Bengal government to provide quantifiable data on social and economic backwardness and the inadequate representation in public sector jobs of the castes that were included by it in the OBC list for granting quota benefits.

The top court also issued notices to the private litigants who had moved Calcutta High Court against the inclusion of 77 castes, mostly Muslims, in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) list.

The West Bengal government’s counsel questioned whether the High Court was overstepping its bounds by attempting to manage the State’s affairs.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, heard the State’s appeal against the High Court’s May 2024 judgment.

In the contentious judgment, the High Court remarked that the Muslim community was treated like a “commodity for political ends” when the West Bengal government classified 77 classes of Muslims as “backward.”

Representing the State of West Bengal, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued that there had been a complete judicial overreach by the High Court. She stated,

“Why is all this happening.. because these are Muslims?? and they say it is about religion… Complete falsehood. It is being said that I made reservations because there are Muslims… We have report after report to show that all communities have been considered. Mandal Commission criteria have been followed. State wants to run the State… but if Court wants to run it, then let them.. How should we? Please answer!”

After hearing these preliminary submissions, the Court issued a notice on the State’s appeal and its interim request for a stay on the High Court’s decision. The Court asked the State to clarify the quantifiable data used to identify the 77 communities as OBC and whether there was any lack of consultation in the process.

“State shall show if any consultation was carried out with the commission to identify the OBC and State shall also show the nature of surveys, etc. that was adhered to. State needs to clarify this,”

–the Court ordered.

During the hearing, the Court acknowledged that the High Court’s decision to nullify key provisions of the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 2012 had significant repercussions.

“The identification was done without [West Bengal State Backward Class] commission reference.. that is the argument. To strike down the Act has radical impact… no reservation for West Bengal at all. This is radical, Mr [Mukul] Rohatgi (who represented the respondents),”

-CJI Chandrachud remarked.

Jaising pointed out that the High Court’s judgment had halted all reservations in the State.

“HC says, it is for the commission has to do this and not the State. The commission was formed in 1993 and the law in 2012. State brought a law on how a caste certificate will be granted and on what basis.. This list goes to the State and State applies its mind.. HC says no, and HC says this function to be performed by Commission and not State,”

-she said.

She further argued for a stay on the High Court’s judgment, stating,

“Let me tell you of the consequences of striking down a list.. Court says, entire list .. the roster has been struck down. How am I to make reservations since the roster and list has been struck down? .. Every time you make an entry you go to the legislature.. entire State has no reservation.. This affects NEET as well as we have reservation in education also… We cannot live in a situation which has no reservation for OBC in the State of West Bengal. 39 percent of the State population is OBC.”

On the opposing side, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi labeled the State’s decision an “absolute fraud” on the Constitution.

“This is an egregious case and no notice should be issued,”

-he asserted.

Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, also representing the respondents, contended that the State’s decision was politically driven, recounting that the classification was made hastily following a promise by the Chief Minister.

“Once the Chief Minister made a promise, the commission was in a tearing hurry to identify a section as OBC… This is how it worked,”

-he contended.

Rohatgi added that the High Court had expressed strong doubts about whether any survey was conducted to identify the castes requiring reservation.

The Court, noting the pre-existing situation was undisturbed, stated there was no immediate case for a stay but would hear the matter in detail.

“Since pre-existing situation was not disturbed.. there is no case of stay. But we will hear it in detail,”

-CJI Chandrachud said.

The Court also required the State to present quantifiable data supporting its decision and clarify whether the categorization of communities extended for reservation was done by the Commission.

“Only the Commission did it, my submissions are very clear,”

–Jaising replied.

CJI Chandrachud concluded,

“Our minds are open. Prima facie, all findings in HC judgment are against you and that is why we are giving a chance to the State to displace those findings. Let the affidavit be filed within a week.”