SC directs West Bengal govt to explain designation of 77 communities as OBCs
The directive by the SC bench followed an appeal by the state against a ruling by the Calcutta HC on May 22, which invalidated the OBC certificates awarded to these communities since 2010, declaring the classification process illegal.
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the West Bengal government to provide a detailed explanation for its decision to designate 77 communities, the majority of which are Muslims, as Other Backward Classes (OBCs), clarifying that the state will have to adduce data on the social backwardness and inadequacy of representation of the designated communities.
The directive by a bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, followed an appeal by the state against a ruling by the Calcutta high court on May 22, which invalidated the OBC certificates awarded to these communities since 2010, declaring the classification process illegal.
The bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued notice on the state’s appeal and considered its plea to stay the high court’s judgment. However, before deciding on any interim relief, the bench mandated that the Mamata Banerjee-led government submit an affidavit by August 11, explaining the criteria and procedures used to classify these communities as OBCs.
The apex court specifically asked the West Bengal government to shed light on the nature of the survey or the enquiry it conducted regarding the “inadequacy of representation and social backwardness” of these 77 communities, emphasising the need for clarity on the methodology and data that underpinned the state’s decision to grant OBC status.
“The state of West Bengal would submit an affidavit explaining the process for the inclusion of 77 communities as OBCs. It will explain specifically that nature of the survey carried out as regards the inadequacy of representation and social backwardness of these communities,” stated the bench, fixing August 16 as the next date of hearing.
Furthermore, the bench questioned the extent of consultation with the West Bengal Backward Classes Commission, particularly in light of the Calcutta high court’s findings that such consultations were either lacking or entirely absent, especially concerning 37 of the communities.
Instructing the state to clarify whether consultations were held and, if so, to provide details of these discussions, the court also raised concerns about whether the state government carried out any subclassification within these communities and asked for an explanation of the criteria used for such subclassifications.
The state government was represented in the top court by senior counsel Indira Jaising and advocate Astha Sharma, while senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, PS Patwalia, S Guru Krishna Kumar, Shyam Divan, Ranjit Kumar and advocate Bansuri Swaraj appeared for the respondents – the petitioners before the high court.
During the proceedings on Monday, Jaising vehemently argued for a stay of the May 22 judgment, contending that the entire reservation policy in the state has come to a standstill after the high court verdict. “There is no roster, no schedule of the reservation in the state anymore because the high court has struck down the relevant provisions of the 2012 Act. Our case is that it is for the Commission to only identify the communities, but the state is authorised to designate them and determine the percentage of reservation for such communities. The high court, however, held otherwise,” she argued.
The group of senior lawyers on the other side, however, supported the high court judgment. They argued that the state had usurped the power of the commission and included the 77 communities, mostly Muslims, in the OBC list only because the chief minister made a political promise in this regard in February 2010. They pointed out that the high court called the state’s action “a fraud on the Constitution” while noting that the Commission did not even disclose the names and number of people who carried out the required survey before earmarking these communities as OBCs.
Perusing the high court judgment, the bench pointed out that the state’s actions have been found lacking in the procedures and criteria used by the West Bengal government in its classification of OBCs and asked for a detailed affidavit from the state.
West Bengal currently provides 17% OBC reservation, divided into OBC A (10%) and OBC B (7%). Out of 81 communities under OBC A, 56 are Muslim, and out of 99 communities under OBC B, 41 are Muslims.
In an order affecting approximately 500,000 people, the high court had on May 22 scrapped OBCs certificates awarded to 77 communities since 2010, an overwhelming majority of them Muslim, and called the classification process illegal. While the high court barred the state from appointing people from these communities with immediate effect but said those appointed so far on the basis of OBC certificates will not be touched.
“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,” said the high court, expressing strong criticism of the process.
It had further stated: “Identification of the classes in the said 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 also struck down key sections of the 2012 law that subclassified the OBC pool. Of the 77 communities whose OBC status was revoked, 42 had been classified as OBC by the previous Left Front government in 2010, with 41 being Muslim. The remaining 35 communities, 34 of which were Muslim, were included by the TMC government through a notification on May 11, 2012.
Criticising the lack of data to support the classification of these communities as inadequately represented in government services, the high court had court directed the state’s Backward Classes Welfare Department and Backward Classes Commission to submit a report to the legislature with recommendations for revising the state list of OBCs, potentially excluding some and including others.
The ruling came in response to petitions filed by three individuals and the human rights organisation Atmadeep between 2010 and 2020, challenging the reservations awarded to various communities under OBC-A and OBC-B categories. The petitioners argued that the TMC government had awarded these reservations without evaluating the economic status of the communities involved.