Calcutta HC to pass interim order today on plea challenging Mamata govt's fresh OBC survey pattern
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court, on Tuesday, will pass an interim order on the petition filed against the pattern of the fresh survey conducted by the West Bengal government to identify the Other Backwards Classes (OBCs) in the state.
The fresh survey was started by the state government following its promise made to the Supreme Court on March 18, while hearing a matter where the state government challenged an earlier order of the Calcutta High Court in May 2024, scrapping all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal since 2010.
On March 18, the state government also promised the apex court to complete the process of the fresh survey within the next three months. However, a petition was filed at the Calcutta High Court challenging the pattern of the fresh survey.
The petitioner accused the state government of entertaining applications only from those 113 OBC communities that were scrapped by the Calcutta High Court.
Last month, when the hearing on the petition came up at the Calcutta High Court, the division bench also raised some questions on the style of conducting the fresh survey by the state government.
The division bench also observed that if individuals genuinely eligible for getting the OBC certificates are not aware of the details of the fresh survey, they will be denied their legitimate rights, and hence, the main purpose of the fresh survey would be defeated.
It also directed the state government to make proper publicity of the fresh survey by issuing advertisements at the grassroots level, starting from village panchayats. The state government counsels, throughout the course of the hearing, had maintained that the fresh survey was conducted as per the court's directions.
To recall, in May last year, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court cancelled all the OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010, which ideally meant that all such certificates issued during the current Trinamool Congress regime in the state since 2011 stood cancelled.
Following this order from the division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, over 5,00,000 OBC certificates issued during that period stood cancelled and could not be used for enjoying the reservation quota for jobs.
The West Bengal government moved the Supreme Court on the Calcutta High Court order, and in March this year, the apex court allowed the state government to conduct a fresh survey to identify the OBCs in the state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC turns down plea for exclusive control of Mahabodhi temple to Buddhists
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea that sought handing over exclusive control of the Mahabodhi temple in Bihar's Bodh Gaya to Buddhists, and asked the petitioner to approach the high court. The Mahabodhi temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar. (File Photo) The plea, filed by lawyer and former Maharashtra minister Sulekha Narayan Kumbhare, challenged the constitutional validity of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, which entrusted a nine-member committee with the temple's management, of which a majority are Hindus. Refusing to entertain the petition, a bench of justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran, said, 'How can we issue mandamus? You please approach the high court. This is not maintainable under Article 32.' The petition claimed that the management of the Mahabodhi temple should be with the Buddhists and the Act was unconstitutional for violating the right of Buddhists to profess their religion and manage their religious institutions. 'Inclusion of members in the committee who are non-Buddhists i.e. Hindus is violative of protections guaranteed to the Buddhist citizens of India and the Lord Buddha himself guaranteed under Articles 19 (right to fundamental freedoms), 21 (life and liberty), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to administer institutions), 28 and 29 (minority rights) of the Constitution of India,' the petition stated. Senior advocate Ravindra Laxman Khapre pointed out that due to mismanagement and indifference to the temple, the sacred Bodhi tree at the site is in danger of decay, as found out by a committee of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The bench dismissed the petition allowing the petitioner to raise these issues before the high court. 'We are not inclined to entertain the petition. Liberty is granted to approach the high court.' While the definition of Hindus includes Buddhists as well, the religious community was recognised as a minority in 1993 under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The petition, filed by advocate Jaydip Pati stated that the Mahabodhi temple is the holiest Buddhist shrine in India and is also a World Heritage site since the year 2002, which is not under the exclusive management of Buddhists. It said, 'Though Buddhists are defined as being part of Hindus, their independent right to profess their religion is also recognized. The said recognition therefore confers rights of Buddhists to profess their religion as per their own choice.' The petitioner argued that the surroundings and vicinity of the area, including the area of the temple, which is now under the possession of the Bodh Gaya Temple Committee used to be under control of Lord Buddha. 'In effect, the idol of Lord Buddha is the owner of the land. It is therefore submitted that the ownership of the site is vested in Lord Buddha as a juristic person.'
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
SC refuses to entertain Lalit Modi's plea seeking that BCCI pay penalty imposed on him by ED
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by former Indian Premier League chairperson Lalit Modi seeking directions to the Board of Control for Cricket in India to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate for violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Live Law reported. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said that Modi could pursue civil remedies seeking indemnification. The bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the former IPL chairperson against a Bombay High Court order dismissing his plea, Bar and Bench reported. Modi has been under investigation by Indian authorities for alleged foreign exchange violations and a Rs 425-crore television rights deal for the 2009 edition of the IPL with World Sports Group. He fled India after attending only one interrogation session with the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate officials in Mumbai. In 2018, the Enforcement Directorate imposed a fine of Rs 121.56 crore on several entities, including the BCCI, its then chairperson N Srinivasan and others. Out of this amount, Modi had been ordered to pay Rs 10.65 crore, Bar and Bench reported. The penalty, which was part of the larger Enforcement Directorate investigation into the 2009 edition of the IPL, was imposed after it was alleged that over Rs 243 crore was allegedly transferred outside India in contravention of Foreign Exchange Management Act regulations. On December 19, the High Court had dismissed a petition filed by Modi seeking an order to the BCCI to pay the penalty, calling it 'frivolous' and 'wholly misconceived', PTI reported. It also imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on Modi. In his petition, Modi had said that he served as the BCCI vice president and the chairperson of the IPL governing council when the alleged violations took place. He argued that on this account, the BCCI was obligated to indemnify him under its bylaws. However, the High Court, citing a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, said that the BCCI was not considered a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence no writ could be issued against it, PTI reported. Modi subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. In the Supreme Court on Monday, the bench reiterated that the BCCI was not a 'state' under Article 12 and hence not directly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except in certain limited functional public duties like organising sports events, Live Law reported.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Supreme Court rejects Lalit Modi's plea asking BCCI to pay ₹10.65 crore FEMA penalty
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former cricket administrator Lalit Modi's plea seeking an order directing the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to pay a penalty of ₹ 10.65 crore imposed on him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan ruled that Lalit Modi could pursue civil remedies available under the law but refused to compel the BCCI to bear the penalty amount. This Supreme Court decision follows a December 19, 2023, ruling by the Bombay High Court which had termed Lalit Modi's petition 'frivolous and wholly misconceived,' while imposing a cost of ₹ 1 lakh on him. The Bombay High Court had observed that the penalty was personally imposed on Lalit Modi by the adjudicating authority under FEMA, and there was no legal basis to direct the BCCI to pay the fine. Lalit Modi had contended that during his tenure as the BCCI's vice-president and chairman of the Indian Premier League (IPL) governing council—a subcommittee of the BCCI—the board was obliged under its bylaws to indemnify him for actions taken in his official capacity. However, the Bombay High Court referred to a 2005 Supreme Court judgment clarifying that the BCCI does not qualify as a 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Bombay HC held that no writ could be issued against the BCCI in matters unrelated to the discharge of public functions. 'In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI,' the High Court had stated. Despite clear directions from the Supreme Court, Lalit Modi had filed the petition in 2018, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court on Monday, 30 June, upheld this dismissal, reiterating that Lalit Modi's plea was without merit.
