A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan addressed the matter, reiterating that “reservation cannot be on the basis of religion.”
![[Row Over OBC List] "Reservation Cannot Be On The Basis Of Religion": Apex Court During the Hearing Of West Bengal Plea Against HC Judgement Quashing OBC Classification Of 77 Communities](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/image-14.jpeg?resize=800%2C450&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: On December 9, the Supreme Court made an oral observation while hearing West Bengal’s petition challenging the Calcutta High Court’s decision to annul the Other Backward Class (OBC) classification of 77 communities, predominantly Muslim.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan addressed the matter, reiterating that “reservation cannot be on the basis of religion.”
Today’s Hearing
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing West Bengal, countered that the reservations were based on the social and educational backwardness of the communities, not religion.
He argued that backwardness exists across all communities and cited the Ranganath Misra Commission’s recommendations supporting such classifications. Sibal emphasized that many communities in question are already part of the central OBC list.
The High Court invalidated the OBC status of multiple castes in West Bengal, which had been granted since 2010, deeming the reservations for these groups in public sector jobs and state-run educational institutions unlawful.
The High Court stated,
“It seems that religion was the only factor considered in designating these communities as OBCs.”
The court added,
“Identifying 77 Muslim groups as backward is an insult to the entire Muslim community.”
Sibal further contended that the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to quash Muslim OBC reservations had been stayed by the Supreme Court.
Highlighting the adverse impact of the High Court’s ruling,
Sibal pointed out that
“around 12 lakh OBC certificates had been invalidated, affecting various sections, including students. He also noted the inconsistency in the High Court’s ruling, where classifications for Hindu backward classes were left unchallenged”.
On behalf of the respondents, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia argued that the reservations were introduced without adequate data, surveys, or consultation with the Backward Classes Commission.
He alleged the reservations were announced after following a political statement made by the then Chief Minister in 2010.
Sibal refuted this claim, stating that a survey report supporting the classification had been submitted to the Court. While referring to the high court’s verdict, Sibal said the provisions of the Act were struck down.
“So these are very serious issues involved. It affects rights of thousands of students who are aspiring to be admitted to universities, people who are wanting jobs,” he said.
Justice Gavai questioned
“how the High Court could strike down Section 12 of the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 2012, which empowers the State to identify backward classes. He emphasized that misuse of a provision alone does not justify its invalidation”.The bench adjourned the case for detailed hearings in January 2025.
Previous Calcutta High Court’s Ruling
The Calcutta High Court previously annulled provisions of the 2012 Act that provided OBC reservations in public services. It criticized the State and the Commission for acting hastily and allegedly aligning with the Chief Minister’s political motives. The Court highlighted procedural lapses, including inadequate public consultation and lack of transparency in data disclosure.
The High Court stated that the classification predominantly focused on Muslim communities, with 41 out of 42 subcategories being religion-specific. It held that the recommendations concealed their religious bias under the pretext of addressing social backwardness, violating constitutional principles and Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court will now review the matter, considering both the procedural and substantive aspects of the reservation policy.
READ ALSO: [Mamata Banerjee vs Calcutta HC] West Bengal’s OBC Certificates Dispute
Reservations for Religious Minorities in India
Unlike the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservations, which address historical caste-based discrimination, OBC reservations focus on the socio-economic and educational backwardness of communities. SC and ST reservations were constitutionally established from the outset, whereas OBC reservations were introduced in 1992 following the Mandal Commission’s recommendations. The landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India case upheld these reservations, emphasizing that they are based on a community’s “backwardness” rather than solely on caste.
The 93rd Constitutional Amendment formally provided for 27% OBC reservations, yet the use of the term “backward classes” under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) allowed for their extension to socially and educationally backward religious minorities as well.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
