Make ads, invite applications for backward class tag: HC to panel
Calcutta High Court
on Tuesday directed
West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes
to make advertisements down to the gram panchayat level, inviting applications for inclusion of a community into the
backward class category
.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
A division bench of justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha took exception to the
OBC Commission
acting on applications already received. Counsel for the petitioner, Subir Sanyal, pointed out that the commission was conducting public hearings only from the applications received from 113 communities.
The division bench had earlier struck down categorisation of 37 and then 77 classes under Schedule I of the state list of OBCs.
"This is a tailor-made process," Sanyal said.
Justice Mantha wanted to know whether the commission invited applications from communities for inclusion under the state OBC category. Senior counsel for the commission submitted that West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, didn't provide for this. "The commission shall examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward class in the lists and hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any backward class in such lists and tender such advice to the state govt as it deems appropriate," the senior counsel submitted, reading out Section 9 (1).
The senior counsel argued that no application was required to be invited for the purpose.
Justice Mantha reminded the senior counsel about the earlier order in which the division bench gave directions to conduct a fair, transparent and just procedure to initiate the identification process. Advocate general Kishore Datta urged the bench to allow the commission to continue with the identification process based on the 11-point module of the Mandal Commission.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Justice Mantha observed that the commission started the process in a different way. "We don't want to stall the identification process. You make an advertisement up to the gram panchayat level and involve block development officers," he said. The advocate general said he would submit details of the identification procedure at the next hearing on May 19 after getting instructions from the state .
Counsel for the petitioner also complained that some govt departments were flouting the affidavit submitted by the chief secretary to the division bench that no recruitment would be made from the 114 communities struck down from the state OBC list.
The division bench directed the petitioner to file an affidavit stating which departments went against the affidavit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC: Pollution boards can impose damages
Pollution control boards are constitutionally empowered to impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages under the Water and Air Acts for actual or potential harm to the environment — not merely punitive penalties — the Supreme Court said in a landmark ruling that redefines the powers of environmental regulators. SC: Pollution boards can impose damages Delivering a judgment with far-reaching implications for environmental governance, a bench led by Justice PS Narasimha declared that such powers are not only legally valid under Sections 33A of the Water Act and 31A of the Air Act, but are also a 'necessary concomitant of the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and the duties of a statutory regulator.' While setting aside a 2012 ruling of the Delhi high court that stripped pollution control boards of their authority to seek environmental damages, the court underscored that remediation and prevention, not just punishment, must lie at the heart of environmental regulation in India. 'This order is a very good development. In fact, this was a concern with Air and Water acts because earlier they were excessively focused on punitive action which led to criminalisation. That was not a good tool to drive change. Civil penalties are very important tools to drive action but they were either imposed by NGT or by Supreme Court,' said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, Centre for Science and Environment. The bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Misra, drew a critical distinction between punitive penalties imposed after finding legal violations, and restitutionary damages, which may be imposed even ex-ante -- before actual environmental harm occurs. In doing so, the court reinforced the preventive role of regulatory authorities, aligning Indian law with global environmental principles such as 'polluter pays' and precautionary action. 'Environmental regulators can impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages in the form of fixed sums or require furnishing of bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure…These powers are incidental and ancillary to their statutory empowerment and are critical to preventing environmental degradation,' it held. Importantly, the court clarified that such damages are not punitive fines and therefore do not require the procedural rigour mandated for criminal prosecution. Instead, they serve as compensatory tools aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems or mitigating potential environmental harm. The judgment draws from the Indian constitutional framework, particularly Article 48A (State's duty to protect the environment) and Article 51A(g) (citizens' fundamental duty to safeguard natural resources). The bench reasoned that in the face of climate change and rising pollution, restoration of the environment is a core constitutional obligation and not just a statutory function. 'Our constitutionalism bears the hallmark of an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights…But such creative expansion is only a job half done if the depth of the remedies, consequent upon infringement, remain shallow,' it noted. The court called environmental protection 'perhaps the most significant duty' imposed under Article 51A, and asserted that regulators must be allowed to act with foresight and autonomy. It emphasised the importance of institutional integrity, independence from government and industrial control and domain expertise within the pollution control boards. The judgment further consolidated the 'polluter pays' principle into Indian jurisprudence, observing that it applies in three scenarios -- when regulatory thresholds are breached causing environmental damage; when no thresholds are breached, yet damage occurs; and when there is a likelihood or risk of environmental damage, even if no harm has occurred yet. In all three instances, the court held, pollution control boards are duty-bound to act, not merely after the fact, but proactively. 'Environmental regulators have a compelling duty to adopt and apply preventive measures irrespective of actual environmental damage. A restrictive interpretation of Sections 33A and 31A would encumber the boards' ability to discharge their duty.' 'This is very good because precautionary action gives you space to drive implementing agencies to enable implementation. More importantly, the polluter pays principle helps in mobilizing additional resources to meet the cost of implementation. For example in Delhi, trucks pay environmental compensation charge, big diesel cars also pay env compensation and there is a cess on diesel. These helped create dedicated funds meant for meeting pollution control measures,' Roychowdhury said. Stressing the importance of democratic participation in environmental governance, the court said future rules must include provisions enabling citizen complaints and community involvement in regulatory oversight. It added that pollution control boards, being the first line of defence, must be accessible, transparent, and accountable. While expanding the powers of regulators, the court emphasised that restitutionary powers be exercised with transparency, fairness, and procedural certainty, and be guided by subordinate legislation in the form of formal rules and regulations. These rules, the court said, must spell out methods for assessing environmental damage, criteria for calculating compensation, natural justice safeguards for affected parties, and mechanisms to ensure public participation in the complaint and enforcement process. The court took note of existing guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in December 2022, pursuant to National Green Tribunal directions, but insisted they must now be codified as binding rules to lend them legal legitimacy and enforceability. 'Boards can decide whether a polluting entity needs to be punished or whether the situation demands immediate restoration-- or both. What matters is that their decision is guided by principle, not arbitrariness,' it said.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
SC slams Rahul over remarks against Army
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the proceedings in a criminal defamation case against Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks against the Indian Army over the 2020 Galwan clash with the Chinese. The top court was hearing Gandhi's appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court judgment refusing to stay the proceedings initiated in a Lucknow trial court against him over his comments that 'Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel'. As per the complainant, Uday Shankar Srivastava, the former director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), the comments made on December 16, 2022, during Gandhi's Bharat Jodo Yatra, defamed the Army. Presiding over a two-judge bench, Justice Dipankar Datta told Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, who appeared for the Congress leader, 'We have read the comments… Tells us… How do you get to know that 2000 square kilometres of Indian territory have been occupied by the Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material? Why do you make these statements without having any…?' 'If you are a true Indian, you would not say all these things,' Justice Dutta said. Singhvi said the comments were in 'public interest', and added, 'It is also possible that a true Indian will say look, our 20 Indian soldiers were beaten up and killed. This is also a matter of concern.'
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Cloud over MGNREGS restart in Bengal as Centre yet to clear labour budget
THE RESUMPTION of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) in West Bengal remains uncertain as the August 1 deadline set by the Calcutta High Court for restarting the scheme is over and the Centre is yet to clear the state's labour budget for the financial year 2025–2026, The Indian Express has learnt. According to sources, the West Bengal government had written to the Union Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) seeking approval to its labour budget, but the same has not been done so far. The labour budget is approved by the Empowered Committee headed by the Union Rural Development Secretary. States generate their demands for funds using NREGASoft, the management information system of the MGNREGS, only after this committee clears their labour budget proposals. Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan said on Monday that the Central government is committed to the development of West Bengal and the welfare of its people. He alleged that the Mamata Banerjee government has 'failed miserably' in effectively implementing MGNREGS, but did not say anything about the resumption of the scheme in the state. 'From the year 2019 to 2022, Central teams visited 19 districts of West Bengal. During these visits, the Central teams found many anomalies and irregularities in the works of MNREGA in the state such as absence of work at the site, dividing the work into portions against the rules, misappropriation of funds… flouting rules and norms of MNREGA,' Chouhan said in a post on X. 'Due to these unethical actions of the state government, misuse of public money and lack of improvement in the system, the Ministry of Rural Development has stopped the release of funds of the state government under Section 27 of the MNREGA Act,' he said. Under the MNREGS, the MoRD releases funds to states 'based on agreed labour budget'. Generally, the states' labour budget proposals are approved by the MoRD by the end of January or before the beginning of the financial year (April-March). In West Bengal's case, no labour budget has been approved after FY 2021-22 after the Centre suspended the implementation of the scheme in the state. By invoking Section 27 of MGNREGA, 2005, the Centre had stopped release of funds to West Bengal with effect from March 9, 2022. In an order on June 18, 2025, the Calcutta High Court directed that the 'scheme be implemented prospectively with effect from August 1, 2025'. However, West Bengal officials say they have not received any intimation from the Centre about resumption of the scheme in the state. They have also been urging the ministry to approve of the labour budget but the same has not happened yet, said an official. The ministry officials have maintained silence so far on the issue of Bengal. Asked whether the MoRD challenged the June 18 order of the Calcutta HC, the officials did not respond. They also did not respond to queries on non-approval of Bengal's labour budget. According to sources, the Centre has not yet challenged the court order yet. On July 22, Union Minister Chouhan told the Lok Sabha that the High Court order is 'being studied in the ministry to decide further course of action'. In January this year, West Bengal's Rural Development Minister Pradip K Mazumdar wrote a letter to Chouhan, seeking an appointment for a meeting, which has not happened so far. Earlier, multiple meetings between the Centre and West Bengal government officials have taken place but the issue has not been resolved till date. Before the Centre suspended the MGNREGS in March 2022, West Bengal figured among the top performers with 51 lakh to 80 lakh families in the state availing of the scheme annually between 2014-15 and 2021-22. The data available on the NREGS portal shows that the number of households working through the rural job guarantee scheme stood at 51 lakh in 2014-15, 61 lakh in 2015-16, 58 lakh in 2016-17, 52 lakh in 2017-18, 43.89 lakh in 2018-19, 54.57 lakh in 2019-20, 79.64 lakh in 2020-21 and 75.97 lakh in 2021-22.
