Supreme Court issues notice to West Bengal Government to explain the process followed for the classification of 77 communities as OBCs

On August 05, 2024 (Monday), the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing a petition filed by the State of West Bengal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court (HC) that quashed the classification of 77 communities as OBCs (Other Backward Classes) given under the West Bengal (WB) Backward Classes (Other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 2012 and canceled all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010. The bench issued notice and directed the West Bengal Government to explain the basis for designating 77 communities as OBCs. The SC bench also issued notice on the stay application of the impugned order. The top court order reads, “Issue notice, including on the application of stay (of the judgment filed by the state government). The state of West Bengal shall file an affidavit before this court explaining the process followed for the classification of 77 communities as OBCs : (1) the nature of the survey; (2) whether there was a lack of consultation with the Commission (state backward panel) in respect of any communities in the list of 77 communities designated as OBCs.” The matter was heard by a three-judge bench constituting Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra. 

During the proceedings, the SC also asked whether the State did any consultation for the sub-classification of the OBCs. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising who appeared for the State submitted, “High Court holds this is the prerogative of the commission, not the state, the commission was set up in 1993, but that state has put up a law in 2012 on how to classify. The process is that the first commission identifies these are the OBCs, then the state applies its mind.” She further argued that striking down the list of reservations also affects NEET because there is also a reservation for education. She pointed out, “Look at the language used in the order, the retired CJ of the High Court is heading the Commission....all because the community happens to be Muslim...This is the reason they give, that the reservation is done on basis of religion! ....all because they are Muslims, I made this reservation, this is the reasoning given.” After hearing the contentions from both parties, the SC bench issued notice and listed the matter for hearing next Friday.