Latest news with #IndraSawhney
The Wire
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Order Pausing West Bengal's Attempts to Notify New OBC List
Law The high court's order passed last month is 'surprising' and 'prima facie erroneous', the top court has been quoted as saying. New Delhi: The Supreme Court has put on hold a Calcutta high court order staying the West Bengal government's attempts to notify a new list of OBC communities, finding the lower court's reasoning 'surprising' and 'prima facie erroneous'. A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai as well as Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria on Monday (July 28) passed an interim order staying the Calcutta high court's judgment passed last month. 'Reservation is part of the executive functions. This is the settled law right from Indra Sawhney; the position is that the executive can do it … legislation is not necessary,' the bench, which called the high court's order 'surprising', said per LiveLaw. It was also quoted as saying that the high court's reasoning was 'erroneous' at first glance. A copy of the apex court's interim order in the matter is awaited. The high court on June 17 had stayed the West Bengal government's attempts to notify a new list of OBC communities, finding that it had on the face of it 'proceeded in hot haste' to try and bring back the same communities and quotas that the court had struck down in May last year. Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Tapabrata Chakraborty of the high court added that the government had done so 'by executive orders and not in exercise of state's legislative functions'. The government ought to have placed the relevant reports before the legislature 'for amendment and introduction of classes in the schedule' of the West Bengal Backward Classes Act, 2012, the high court had said, which LiveLaw cited Justice Gavai as disagreeing with on Monday. Last week too the chief justice while listing the case for hearing had indicated that the executive can indeed classify communities for reservation as has been the case since the top court's Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992, which among other things upheld quotas for OBCs. West Bengal's Trinamool Congress-led government decided to prepare a new list of OBC communities after the Calcutta high court in May last year struck down lakhs of OBC certificates it had issued since 2010. In that judgment the high court, which had also struck down some sections of the 2012 Backward Classes Act, said that the government's decision to notify 77 Muslim communities as backward amounted to an 'affront to the Muslim community as a whole'. 'This court's mind is not free from doubt that the said community has been treated as a commodity for political ends … Such reservation is therefore also an affront to democracy and the Constitution of India as a whole,' the bench comprising Justices Mantha and Chakraborty had ruled. The state government challenged this judgment in the Supreme Court and ultimately withdrew it. It later challenged the high court's June 17, 2025 judgment in the top court. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hans India
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
42% BC quota: ‘State govt to face many legal hurdles for taking ordinance route'
The Telangana Government has chosen the Ordinance Route for BC Reservations in Panchayat Polls, which has many legal and political ramifications. This ordinance route, just before the upcoming Panchayat elections, is to enhance Backward Classes (BC) reservations in local bodies. This move carries serious legal and political implications, especially since it attempts to exceed the 50% reservation ceiling imposed by the Supreme Court. The Triple Test Doctrine The Supreme Court, in K. Krishnamurthy v. Union of India (2010) and reaffirmed in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra (2021), laid down the Triple Test for granting OBC reservations in local bodies: ♦ Empirical Identification: A rigorous study identifying social and educational backwardness. ♦ Political Backwardness Analysis: Unit-wise examination of backwardness for each local body to determine the exact quota percentage. ♦ 50% Cap Compliance: The total reservation should not exceed 50%, unless backed by extraordinary justification based on quantifiable data. The Supreme Court has categorically held that this ceiling is part of the basic structure of equality, and any deviation requires robust evidence and exceptional circumstances. Telangana's Plan and Legal Complexities The Telangana Cabinet approved a draft ordinance to implement 42% BC reservation in Panchayat Raj institutions, supported by two Bills already passed in the State Assembly for BC reservations in education and employment. The percentage is based on a comprehensive caste survey report submitted to the BC Commission headed by B. Venkateshwara Rao. Once approved by the Governor, the ordinance will apply this enhanced quota in the upcoming local body elections. However, this raises several constitutional and judicial concerns: ♦ The Governor, Jishnu Dev Varma, is reportedly seeking legal opinion before giving assent. ♦ There are doubts about the legality of using an ordinance to bypass pending constitutional processes, as two original Bills are still with the President for assent. ♦ The Telangana High Court, while directing the government to conduct local body elections by September 30, did not address the reservation policy. Using this as urgency for an ordinance could be seen as colourable legislation- a misuse of power for political ends. Conflict with the Supreme Court's 50% Ceiling The proposal directly challenges the SC's rulings in Indra Sawhney and subsequent cases, which strictly maintain that reservations should not cross 50%, except in rare situations backed by empirical data and transparency. Telangana argues that its caste survey shows 56% of the population belongs to BC communities, including BC Muslims, thus creating an 'extraordinary situation.' However, the report remains confidential, raising questions: ♦ Can empowerment of BCs be achieved without transparency and accountability? ♦ Does withholding the report undermine public trust and judicial scrutiny? Key Constitutional Issues ♦ Article 213(1)(a) – The Governor cannot promulgate an ordinance on a subject requiring the President's prior sanction. Here, the subject overlaps with pending Bills awaiting Presidential assent, making the ordinance potentially unconstitutional. ♦ Doctrine of Colourable Legislation – Proroguing the Assembly at 3 PM and sending an ordinance on the same subject at 4 PM indicates an attempt to circumvent constitutional checks, disturbing the delicate federal balance. ♦ Violation of Equality Principle – A sudden move to exceed 50% without full disclosure of data and compliance with the triple test is open to challenge as a breach of constitutional equality. ♦ Subversion of Presidential Power – Proceeding with an ordinance while the Bills are pending before the President could be viewed as undermining Article 200 and 201 processes. Political Dimension The urgency behind this ordinance appears linked to Panchayat elections and political gains among BC voters. Earlier attempts to pass similar laws were stalled at the central level, with state leaders even urging the Centre to include enhanced BC quota in the Ninth Schedule to shield it from judicial review. Why Was the Education and Employment Bill Passed? Passing two significant Bills—on education and employment—alongside Panchayat reservations indicates a broader BC empowerment strategy. However, pushing an ordinance while Bills are with the President creates an impression of political expediency rather than constitutional propriety. Legal Challenges The proposed ordinance, if signed by the Governor, will face serious legal challenges for violating: ♦ Supreme Court precedents on reservation limits ♦ Article 213(1)(a) of the Constitution, and ♦ Principles of transparency and equality. The controversy underscores a fundamental question: Can social justice measures be pushed through opaque, politically timed ordinances, bypassing constitutional safeguards? The answer will likely emerge in the courts in the coming months.
Time of India
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC opens up staff jobs for OBC and SC/ST blocs, 'omits' EWS
Supreme Court (AI-generated image) NEW DELHI: CJI B R Gavai, second from the Dalit community to head the judiciary, has amended the Supreme Court Officers and Servant (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1961, to provide for reservations to SCs, STs, OBCs, physically challenged, ex-servicemen and dependents of freedom fighters in direct recruitments to subordinate staff of the apex court. Rule 4A of the Act, amended and substituted on the CJI's instructions, has been gazetted through a notification issued on July 3. However, it omits reservation for candidates belonging to the economically weaker section (EWS), which was introduced by Parliament through Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019. The substituted Section 4A, as gazetted, reads: "Reservation in direct recruitment to various categories of posts specified in the Schedule, for the candidates belonging to SCs, STs, OBCs, Physically Challenged, Ex-servicemen and dependant of Freedom Fighters shall be in accordance with the Rules, orders, and Notifications issued from time to time by the Government of India in respect of posts carrying the pay scale corresponding to the pay scale prescribed for the post specified in the Schedule, subject to such modification, variation or exception as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify. " The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act introduced Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to give effect to 10% reservation for EWS in govt jobs and admissions to govt and govt-aided educational institutions. It received Presidential assent on Jan 12, 2019. The constitutional validity of EWS quota was challenged in Supreme Court by more than 20 petitions, mainly on the ground that it exceeded the 50% ceiling on quota imposed by SC in its Indra Sawhney judgment in 1992. A five-judge bench led by then CJI U U Lalit on Nov 7, 2022, by three to two majority, declared that Parliament's decision to provide quota for EWS category was constitutionally valid. The majority view was shared by Justices Dinesh Maheswari, Bela M Trivedi and J B Pardiwala, while Justices Lalit and S R Bhat ruled that EWS quota was illegal. On Dec 6, 2022, NGO 'Society for the Rights of Backward Communities' filed a petition seeking review of the Nov 7 judgment. A five-judge bench led by then CJI D Y Chandrachud on May 9, 2023 dismissed the review petition, thus giving judicial impregnability to the validity of the EWS quota.
Indian Express
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Bengal's OBC list: After HC rap, who goes out, who stays, and why BJP is objecting
WITH the race to the West Bengal Assembly elections kicking into gear, and the Supreme Court set to hold a hearing on the matter next month, the Mamata Banerjee government hopes to have extricated itself from the row over its OBC list by coming out with another. On June 10, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee laid in the Assembly new OBC-A and OBC-B lists, adding 76 groups and taking the total number to 140. However, the BJP has alleged that these lists carry the same basis as what led the High Court last year to scrap all additions to OBCs since 2010 by the West Bengal government – that these are heavily skewed in favour of Muslims. Of the 140 communities in the OBC list now, 80 are Muslim. The High Court had scrapped 113 names from the list of OBCs, retaining 66, last year. Of the scrapped 113, 76 have now been added back, while two from the list of 66 have been taken out. Applications of others, the state government has said, are pending. While the names of the groups added back have been specified, it is not the case with those left out. The government has also said that the 76 new OBC groups added were shortlisted purely on the basis of recommendations of the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes. Of these 51 were added to OBC-A (covering the 'more backward' among OBCs) and 25 to OBC-B. Between March 2010 and May 2012, 77 communities were issued OBC certificates by the state, 75 of them Muslim. Of these 75 Muslim groups, 42 got OBC status under the Left government in 2010. The first challenge in the high court was filed in 2011 on the ground that the declaration of these 42 classes as OBCs was 'based purely on religion', that 'the categorisation is not based on any acceptable data, and that the survey conducted by the (backward classes) commission was unscientific, and prefabricated… to fit the head'. In May 2012, by which time the TMC government had come to power, another 35 classes were categorised as OBC, 34 of them from the Muslim community. This too was challenged in the court. In March 2013, the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Reservation of vacancies and posts) Act, 2012, was notified. All 77 (42+35) new OBCs were included in the Act. Two petitions were filed challenging the Act. On May 22, 2024, the court struck down the inclusion of 113 groups in total, retaining only 66, saying 'religion indeed appears to have been the sole criterion' for granting the status. As with most cases where reservations have been challenged, the court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's Indra Sawhney v Union of India (Mandal judgment). The 1992 order had held that states must establish a backward classes commission to identify and recommend classes of citizens for inclusion or exclusion in the state OBC list. The High Court said that in West Bengal's case, between 2010 and 2012, the backward classes commission's recommendations had been made with 'lightning speed'… without using any 'objective criteria' to determine the backwardness of these classes. 'Religion indeed appears to have been the sole criterion for declaring these communities as OBCs', and the reports that the commission submitted were meant only to 'curtain and hide such religion specific recommendations', the court said. 'This court's mind is not free from doubt that the said community has been treated as a commodity for political ends', and that the classes added were being treated as a 'vote bank', it said. The court also struck down portions of the 2012 Act that allowed the state government to 'sub-classify' OBC reservations into OBC-A and OBC-B categories for 'more backward' and 'backward' classes respectively. Sub-classification is meant to address the different levels of deprivation, which the court held could only be done by referring to material collected by the commission. The High Court order coincided with the Lok Sabha campaign, and the BJP accused the ruling Trinamool Congress of seeking to take away reservation and other benefits from Hindus and giving them to Muslims. Following the court order, CM Banerjee said they would file an appeal challenging the same in the Supreme Court, adding: 'You (the BJP) are playing at A and I will play at B. If you play at C, I will play at Z.' The TMC government contended that the backward classes commission identified the classes based on applications received from citizens. In 2024, the TMC government moved the Supreme Court, along with some other petitioners. On March 18 this year, the government informed the Court that a fresh exercise was being conducted for the identification of OBCs in the state. The Court then agreed to adjourn the matter by three months and take it up in July. On Tuesday, Banerjee laid an interim report of the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes in the Assembly. Noting that for inclusion in the OBC list, a class or citizen needs to apply 'in the prescribed proforma detailing the social, economic and educational features of that class', the report said that the commission had 'till date' recommended '179 classes for inclusion as 'Other Backward Classes' in the State list of OBCs'. Out of these, the panel said, 113 were struck down by the High Court in May 2024. 'Only 66 communities enlisted before 2010 were kept untouched.' The report added that it had now recommended 'for inclusion of 51 plus 25 classes, total 76 classes'. Out of these 76 classes, the report said, 74 had been 'delisted' by the High Court order, while two 'applied afresh for inclusion'. Sub-categorising these 76 classes, the commission said 35 fall in the OBC-A category and 41 in OBC-B. The commission's report also sub-categorised 64 of 'the 66 classes of OBCs which were not delisted' by High Court. 'The Commission after due consideration of the scores received by such 64 classes in the Benchmark Survey, recommended sub-categorisation of 14 classes in Category A (More Backward) while 50 classes were recommended to be categorised in Category B (Backward). For the remaining 2 classes, the Commission decided to conduct a fresh survey.' It added that it was still carrying out its benchmark survey as regards 41 communities. 'This process is expected to be completed within the next month or two.' In addition to this, says the report, '7 more communities have placed their applications before West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes for inclusion in the State OBC List…'. Presenting the commission's report, the CM said: 'Some corners are trying to campaign that the state government is providing reservation on the basis of religion, which is baseless… We made the new OBC-A and OBC-B lists on the basis of a scientific benchmark survey conducted by the commission and included those communities which are backward. There is no question of making OBC categories on the basis of religion.' A government notification the same day said that of the total number of OBC groups now, 80 are Muslim and 60 non-Muslim, with Muslims making up 57.14% of the total. Of the 49 in the most backward OBC-A category, 36 are Muslim; and of the 91 in OBC-B category, 44 are Muslims. Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari has alleged that the new OBC list prepared by the TMC government also has religion as criterion, and provides 'one-sided benefit' exclusively to Muslims. He posted on X Wednesday: 'OBC = Other Backward Classes. In West Bengal it means One-Sided Beneficiary Classes.' Countering Adhikari, the TMC said, 'We all know that 'Divide and Rule' is the official policy of the BJP, and your only agenda for the 2026 elections is to pit Hindus against Muslims.' It reiterated Banerjee's statement that backwardness, not religion, is the sole criterion for OBC status, and said: 'The new list was prepared with that principle in mind.'
The Print
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
AIADMK led the way on caste census. History should remember that: E Palaniswami
As early as 2021, during my tenure as chief minister, our government was among the first to demand a fresh caste census. We argued vociferously that welfare policies cannot be built on outdated data from 1931. We recognised then, as we follow now, that progress requires not just empathy but evidence. This moment did not emerge overnight. The call for a caste-based census, now accepted at the national level, has its roots in the firm ideological soil of Tamil Nadu's social justice movement. And in that journey, it was the AIADMK, under the visionary leadership of Puratchi Thalaivi Amma J. Jayalalithaa, that laid the foundation for genuine representational equity. In the intricate fabric of Indian democracy, few questions strike at the heart of equality and representation like that of caste. The recent announcement by the Union government to conduct a comprehensive caste census is a landmark moment—one that promises to reshape the contours of social justice policy in India. As the Leader of the Opposition in Tamil Nadu, I welcome this move with conviction and pride, for it affirms a demand the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam first articulated with clarity and foresight. Tamil Nadu has long stood as a beacon of affirmative action, with its unique 69 per cent reservation policy. That achievement was not accidental but was made possible by AIADMK's political resolve and constitutional acumen. When the Supreme Court's Indra Sawhney (Mandal) judgment in 1992 imposed a 50 per cent cap on reservations, the very framework of Tamil Nadu's policy was threatened. But Amma Jayalalithaa rose to the challenge. In 1993, she convened a special assembly session, passed a unanimous resolution, and led an all-party delegation to Delhi. Her persistent persuasion ensured the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act was placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, protecting it from judicial review. That was not just governance; it was transformative leadership. Also read: Dear Shekhar Gupta, don't fear caste census. Let it prove private sector has no caste inequality Duplicitous claims of DMK Our 2021 demand for a caste census was not political posturing. It was a reflection of AIADMK's long-standing understanding of Tamil Nadu's evolving social realities. We recognised the urgent need to reassess the representation and well-being of Backward Classes (BC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in education, employment, and welfare. This demand, when initially raised, was met with silence from the ruling DMK. But the party now conveniently claims to be a torchbearer of this cause. It was only in late 2023 that the DMK Chief Minister wrote to the Prime Minister, echoing what we had already taken to the people. Thanks to the Union government's announcement, it has finally become a part of the national agenda and exposed the duplicitous stand of DMK on representative caste census. Even today, the DMK's steps appear more opportunistic than pioneering. Their one-man commission on caste enumeration, announced with fanfare, has yielded little clarity or direction. Unlike the AIADMK, which took bold, constitutionally binding action, the DMK has often been content with symbolic gestures. Our record speaks for itself The historical trajectory of reservation is inseparable from AIADMK's legacy: In the 1980s, MG Ramachandran, AIADMK's founder, raised BC reservations to 50 per cent, bringing the total quota to 68 per cent. By 1990, the quota stood at 69 per cent. But when the courts cast doubt on its legality, it was Madam Jayalalithaa who protected it through constitutional means. Also read: Blow to Yogi, Fadnavis, Gadkari—caste census will change criteria for PM Modi's successor Issue finally gets its due Today, Tamil Nadu remains the only state with such a robust reservation policy, safeguarded by constitutional protection—because AIADMK did not waver in the face of opposition. With the Union government now committing to conduct a caste census, AIADMK welcomes this historic and courageous decision. We believe this data will not only help tailor welfare policies to contemporary needs but will also allow for more accurate and fair distribution of resources and representation. It is heartening to see this issue receiving national attention, and we commend our allies at the Centre for recognising its importance. This census will gather detailed demographic data on caste distribution, education levels, employment patterns, and socio-economic status across the country. Its findings could reframe how reservations are allocated, how social schemes are targeted, and how the state and Centre together approach the long project of inclusive development. Also read: BJP's caste census move is reformist. Congress is clinging to religion-based reservation Electoral calculation vs. moral clarity One must ask, why did the DMK hesitate for so long? The answer lies in their electoral arithmetic. A full and transparent caste census could disrupt the fragile caste alliances that the DMK has carefully built over decades. The AIADMK, by contrast, has always believed that uncomfortable truths are better than convenient fictions. For us, justice must be grounded in facts—and for it we stand unwavered. The DMK's sudden support for a caste census appears less an act of ideological commitment and more of political compulsion. Their delays and diversions on this issue contrast sharply with the AIADMK's clarity and consistency. A caste census is not a panacea, but it is an essential tool. If we are to build an India that truly represents all its people, we must start by knowing who those people are, where they stand, and how far they still must go. Tamil Nadu must once again lead by example. Edappadi K. Palaniswami is former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the general Secretary of the AIADMK, and Leader of Opposition, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. His X handle is @EPSTamilNadu. Views are personal.
