Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order pausing new OBC list in Bengal
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai termed the impugned Calcutta High Court order both "surprising" and "prima facie erroneous'.
The Bench, also comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, disagreed with the Calcutta HC's view that the West Bengal government ought to have taken the state Assembly's approval before introducing the new OBC list.
'How can the Calcutta High Court pass a stay like this? Reservation is part of the Executive functions. This is the settled law right from the Indira Sawhney (judgment) that the Executive can do it. Executive instructions are enough for providing reservations and legislation is not necessary,' remarked the apex court.
After parties urged the top court to decide the matter itself, the CJI Gavai-led Bench issued a notice on the West Bengal government's Special Leave Petition and listed the case for hearing after two weeks.
'Issue notice. In the meantime, there shall be a stay to the impugned order (of the Calcutta HC),' the Supreme Court said.
In an interim order passed on June 17, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had asked the West Bengal government not to publish the final notification for the new OBC list till July 31 this year.
A Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha prima facie opined that the previous four to five notifications issued by the West Bengal government on the fresh survey to prepare the fresh OBC list were in violation of the apex court orders.
The fresh OBC list was supposed to include 140 communities, and the interim stay was perceived as a major blow to the Mamata Banerjee-led state government.
In its plea filed before the apex court, the state government has argued that if the interim stay imposed by the Calcutta High Court on issuing the final notification for the fresh OBC list prevails till July 31, the process for recruitments under this category, as directed by the apex court earlier, would be stalled.
Earlier in May 2024, the Calcutta High Court had 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.
The West Bengal government had moved the Supreme Court against this, and in March this year, the apex court allowed the state government to conduct a fresh survey to identify the OBCs in the state.
Claiming that the fresh survey process was a blatant example of appeasement politics, a petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court challenging the pattern of the survey.
The plea accused the state government of entertaining applications only from those 113 OBC communities that were scrapped by the Calcutta High Court last year.
In an interim order passed on June 17, the Justice Chakraborty-headed Bench issued a stay on the issuance of the final notification for a revised OBC list in West Bengal till July 31.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Military Grade RDX Kahan se Aaya?' Owaisi questions NIA verdict in Malegaon blast case
On NIA court acquitting all the accused in the Malegaon Blast case, AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi says, "... After 17 years, all the accused were acquitted. The Maharashtra government went to the Supreme Court against the verdict of the Mumbai 2006 Mumbai train blast case. Won't this be a hypocrisy on terrorism if they do not go to the Supreme Court? Military-grade RDX was used in the blast. Where did it come from?... Who is responsible for these bomb blasts? The ones who actually did it are roaming free. My question is, will the Modi Govt and the Maharashtra Govt go to the Supreme Court against this verdict?..." Show more Show less
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
WBJEE exam results to be announced on August 7: Board chief
Kolkata, The West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board (WBJEE) on Thursday said it will publish this year's entrance exam results on August 7, following a delay of over a month. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Decks were cleared to publish the results following the 's July 28 order staying Calcutta High Court's earlier decision to halt the implementation of a revised list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) notified by the state government. WBJEE board chairperson Sonali Chakraborty Banerjee told reporters that the results will be declared on August 7. "From today (July 31), candidates will have to upload details about their caste category certificate in the relevant section of WBJEE portal till August 2. The board will sort out the data and incorporate updates of every candidate before coming up with the results," she said. "We are sure the process (of uploading details) will be over by the stipulated time and the results will be published on August 7," the WBJEE chairperson said. A senior higher education department official said, "The decision to update every candidate's profile with caste category details have been taken after consulting legal experts." The WBJEE exams were held on April 27. On July 28, a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, while hearing the state government's appeal, vacated the high court's stay and noted that "prima facie, the high court order seems to be erroneous." On June 17, the Calcutta High Court ordered an interim stay on notifications issued by the state government with regard to reservations to 140 subsections under OBC-A and OBC-B categories made by it. The state had prepared the new list after the high court, in May 2024, quashed the inclusion of as many as 77 communities in the OBC list. PTI
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
HC issues notice to Punjab Govt over failure to implement hybrid hearings in State Information Commission
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Thursday issued notice to the Punjab Government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging non-compliance with Supreme Court directives mandating hybrid hearings before the Punjab State Information Commission. The PIL, filed by 24-year-old RTI activist and advocate Nikhil Thamman, challenged the Commission's failure to provide virtual hearing options and related digital infrastructure as required under the apex court's 2023 ruling in Kishan Chand Jain v Union of India. Appearing in person, Thamman argued that the Commission's continued reliance on physical hearings effectively deprived citizens, especially those from remote and rural areas, of access to quasi-judicial proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner submitted that despite the Supreme Court's clear directions requiring all State Information Commissions to offer hybrid hearing options and include virtual hearing links in daily cause lists by December 31, 2023, Punjab had failed to implement even the most basic requirements. Citing a legal notice he had served on June 28, 2025, to the Punjab Government and the State Information Commission, Thamman stated that no corrective steps had been taken despite warnings of potential contempt proceedings. Thamman further pointed out that the commission had failed to establish an e-filing mechanism and electronic service of RTI documents — provisions that were central to both the Supreme Court's directives and the RTI Act's emphasis on accessibility and time-bound redressal. Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, before whom the matter was listed, issued notice to the State and posted the case for further hearing on September 15. The PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, raised two principal questions: whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Punjab State Information Commission to implement hybrid hearings across all proceedings, and whether virtual links should be mandatorily included in daily cause lists to ensure citizen participation through video conferencing. Thamman submitted that video conferencing facilities installed in District Administrative Complexes across Punjab remained largely non-functional, thereby defeating the purpose of decentralised justice. He contended that the commission's inaction amounted to a violation not only of the RTI Act but also of citizens' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution. The PIL also drew attention to the real-life hardships imposed by the current system: many citizens from distant districts had to travel to Chandigarh merely to mark attendance or appear for brief hearings, often at considerable financial and logistical cost. In contrast, Thamman maintained that the widespread availability of smartphones and video conferencing applications made hybrid hearings both feasible and necessary. Thamman, a resident of Banur in SAS Nagar district, sought comprehensive relief from the High Court, including the implementation of hybrid hearings, inclusion of virtual hearing links in all cause lists, establishment of operational e-filing and e-service mechanisms, and any other directions the court deemed appropriate to secure effective enforcement of the RTI Act in Punjab.
