Supreme Court Questions Religion-Based OBC Reservation in West Bengal

The Supreme Court on Monday, December 9, 2024, observed that reservations should not be based on religion while hearing an appeal by the State of West Bengal against a Calcutta High Court judgment. The High Court had struck down the state’s policy of including several castes, predominantly Muslim communities, in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) list. The court concluded that religion was the “sole criterion” for declaring these communities as OBCs, calling the classification of 77 Muslim groups as backward an “affront to the Muslim community as a whole.”

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State along with advocate Astha Sharma, argued that the inclusion was based on backwardness, not religion. A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan scheduled the matter for a detailed hearing on January 7, 2025.

Supreme Court instructions

In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court directed the State to clarify the methodology and scope of the survey conducted to determine the social and educational backwardness of these communities, as well as their underrepresentation in state public services. The court also questioned whether meaningful consultations had been held with the West Bengal Backward Classes Commission before designating these communities as OBCs and during their sub-classification for reservation purposes. “The State shall clarify the nature of the survey and material in its possession which led to the inclusion,” the court stated.

See also  संविधान से नहीं हटेगा 'समाजवादी' और 'धर्मनिरपेक्ष' शब्द: सुप्रीम कोर्ट

Impact of the High Court Ruling

The Calcutta High Court’s judgment affected nearly five lakh OBC certificates issued in the state since 2010. However, it clarified that the ruling would not impact individuals who had already secured jobs using these certificates. The judgment struck down portions of the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 2012. Nullified provisions included Section 16, part of Section 2(h), and Section 5(a), which had allocated 10% and 7% reservation to the sub-classified categories OBC-A and OBC-B. These categories were subsequently removed from Schedule I of the Act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

10 most Expensive cities in the World धरती आबा बिरसा मुंडा के कथन