The Supreme Court, today, issued notice in a stay application filed in a petition challenging the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court striking down the OBC reservations granted by the State of West Bengal between 2010 and 2012.

A Division Bench of the High Court had 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.

The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra ordered, "Issue Notice on the application seeking a stay. The State of West Bengal can file an affidavit before this Court explaining the process which was followed before the designation of 77 communities as the Backward Class...whether there was any lack of consultation in respect of 37 communities and the sub-classification and whether there was any lack of clarification from backward class classification...State shall also show the nature of surveys etc that was adhered to."

Senior Advocate Indira Jaisingh appeared for the State of West Bengal and Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Guru Krishna Kumar, Ranjit Kumar and Advocate Bansuri Swaraj appeared for the Respondent.

Jaisingh submitted, "The High Court has struck down, not only the reservations for the OBC but several provisions of the Statute itself. Now as a consequence of the statute being struck, all reservations in the State of West Bengal have come to a complete halt."

Mukul Rohatgi replied, "This is an absolute fraud...an egregious case."

Jaisingh said, "There is an allegation against the State that they have put reservations on the basis of religion....it is completely false...Look at the language used in the order...all because the community has to happen to be Muslims...this is the reason they gave....reservation is done on the basis of religion...I made these reservations only because they are Muslims...that is ruling Milord..."

CJI remarked, "We are inclined to issue notice but she is pressing for a stay...also Mr Rohatgi to strike down the act will have radical consequences...there will be no reservations."

Rohatgi submitted, "The High Court held that there was a strong doubt as to whether there was any survey at all... and that the reservation was on the basis of pre-identified castes and ultimately High Court found that all reservation was religion based."

Jaisingh also said, "Amendment has been struck down...on what ground that you have diluted 'ordinarily binding'. So by making that amendment, you have taken away the power of the commission because you have diluted the expression 'ordinarily binding'. What is alarming is that the judgment says that the 'ordinarily binding' must be read as binding and the word consultation with the commission must be read as binding."

Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, who also appeared before the High Court, submitted that the High Court carefully considered the submissions on the validity of the Act, and therefore the submission today that the entire Act is struck down is incorrect. "What the High Court has done is threefold: It has said, 1) Definition of 'list' in the 2012 Act should be read as the list prepared by the State consultation with the commission through a legislative exercise; 2) High Court has set aside the Schedule to the extent that 77 communities are being included, only that much has been done; 3) The definition of backward classes, which has been given in the State, where unguided discretion is given to the States, without any consultation, has been set aside and 4) The State did not rely upon any of the reports by Backward Classes commission...the refrain of the State was under 16(4) I have overarching power..."

In the Judgment which expressly stated that it is prospective, the High Court had held that from the date of the pronouncement of the Judgement, the citizens from 114 (77+37) OBC classes cannot be appointed under the State services or derive any other benefit of any reservation for the purposes of Article 16(4) of the Constitution until the Backward Classes Commission and the State conduct fresh exercise for the purposes of Article16(4), in accordance with law.

"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 High Court had held on the issue of reservation to Muslims based on religion.

Accordingly, the matter is now listed for a further date.

Cause Title: The State Of West Bengal v Amal Chandra Das (Diary No. 27287/2024)

Chief Justice DY ChandrachudJustice JB PardiwalaJustice Manoj Misra

Aastha Kaushik