Calcutta HC Cancels Status of 37 OBCs, Sparks Unprecedented Reservation Dispute (Explained)

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday delivered an explosive judgment in Amal Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal et al., striking down the notification of 37 sub-categories of OBC and issuance of OBC certificates post-2010 for appointments in government services.

Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha of the Calcutta Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court delivered an over 200-page judgment in the PIL case. The main challenge was related to the procedural aspects and scope of granting OBC status to certain sections in West Bengal.

Background

Essentially, the Court took up a series of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the identification and classification of 77 classes as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the State of West Bengal. Besides, the petitioners questioned the constitutional scope and validity of certain provisions of the West Bengal (Other than SC and ST) Reservation in Jobs (Reservation in Jobs) Act, 2012, under which these classes could benefit from reservation in government jobs.

All submissions filed by the petitioner, the State, the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes and the National Commission for Backward Classes were filed and considered in the proceedings.

Executive overreach and the role of the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes

The main allegation in this case was that the state executive exercised arbitrary discretion to notify OBC classes from 2010 onwards, without following due process, consulting and receiving objective recommendations from the West Bengal Backward Classes Commission (the “Commission”). .

In 1992, the Supreme Court directed all states and the Central Government of India to “set up a Tribunal or Commission to assist and assist in the identification of OBCs eligible for reservation and/or special benefits under Art. 16 section 4 of the Constitution of India India.” To implement this, the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 was enacted.

Relying on the facts, the Tribunal said: “Between 1994 and 2009 (15 years), on the recommendation of the Commission, the State created 66 classes as OBCs which included both Hindu (54) and Muslim (12) communities.” The Commission is legally considered to have played its role in this process.

However, “between 2010 and 2012, the state issued seven implementing orders/memorandums” for inclusion of 77 groups and 37 sub-classes in the OBC category, where the Commission’s involvement and consultation were questioned due to alleged social bias.

Some key observations of the HC and its final conclusion:

On reservation of government appointments: “The citizens of the said 77 classes and 37 classes (illegally divided into sub-categories) shall not be eligible for appointment in the State services or otherwise derive any benefit from any reservation under the 2012 Act or any regulations.”

Nothing more can be done on this issue “until the Commission and the State take new action to this end.” However, the Court allowed people who were already working in government services before 2010 to remain unaffected.

More importantly, 37 sub-classifications of OBCs made by the state executive are to be deleted from the Government Reservations Act, 2012, thereby removing their OBC status.

Finally, 66 previously registered classes will continue to be subject to 7% reservation percentage.

Addressing the problem of executive overreach: The Court said that “Consultation with the Commission is mandatory both for sub-classification of OBCs and for fixing percentage of reservation for classes or sub-classes.” The Commission’s opinion and advice are therefore “ordinarily binding on the State Legislature.”

On the need for objectivity in OBC classification: The HC said that “objective factors and criteria” and “what is the actual representation of the class in state services” are important. “In the present case, the Commission unfortunately did not take any of these actions, as is clear from its reports.” It noted that “religion appears indeed to have been the only criterion for declaring these communities as OBCs.” The Court expressed concern that “there is no doubt that the said community was treated as a commodity for political purposes.”

Hit:

It is estimated that five million OBC certificates will be canceled due to the verdict. Despite West Bengal CM and Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mamta Banerjee refusing to accept the order, the verdict may have serious repercussions during the 6th phase of voting when 8 constituencies of the state go to polls on May 25, 2024.

The Court closed the case by emphasizing the need to “adopt a contextual interpretation”, “strictly respect the rule of law” and preserve “the constitutional guarantee of fairness and rationality”.

This issue has become more important because it raises the key issue of the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature in making administrative law. However, at a macro level it speaks to broader issues of how the mandate of social inclusion should be improved using the machinery of government and ‘legislative politics’.

As expected, the issue has already sparked a heated debate on the issue of reservations in India.