Kolkata: The Supreme Court on Monday put an interim stay on the Calcutta High Court’s order that stayed notifications relating to Bengal’s revised list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of West Bengal. The Trinamool Congress (TMC) on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court’s stay on the Calcutta High Court’s decision and claimed the top court’s order revealed that some of the lawyers belonging to Left and right-wing camps were at work to complicate matters in the functioning of the higher education system. TMC state general secretary Kunal Ghosh said: “When all the processes were stalled due to the High Court’s order regarding OBC and a large number of people faced harassment in various ways, those who were performing demonic dances and delivering grand speeches—where are they hiding now, after the Supreme Court’s verdict?”
The “mask” of the Left and right-wing lawyers who wanted to complicate matters has been removed, Ghosh said in a statement on social media.
Education minister Bratya Basu said: “Today’s stay in the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a moral victory of the OBC policy of our Hon’ble Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.” CJI Gavai is learnt to have expressed surprise at the reasoning adopted by the High Court, which held that the OBC list must be approved by the legislature. “This is surprising! How can the High Court stay like this? Reservation is part of the executive functions... Executive instructions are enough for providing reservations and legislation is not necessary,” he remarked, referring to the settled position laid down in the Indra Sawhney case.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state, urged the bench to stay the High Court’s order, stating that several appointments and promotions had been stalled. He also pointed out that contempt petitions had been filed in the High Court following the stay. Sibal submitted that the revised list was based on a fresh survey and report by the State Backward Classes Commission.
Opposing the stay, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, for the respondents, argued that the law enacted by the State required legislative approval for the list. Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar contended that the identification had been done without adequate data.
CJI Gavai suggested that the High Court could be asked to hear the matter afresh within a fixed timeframe and possibly by a different bench. However, the respondents preferred to argue the case before the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the bench observed that the High Court’s order was “prima facie erroneous” and stayed its operation. “The Commission has followed some methodology. It may be correct or not — that will be decided by the High Court finally,” the CJI remarked.
The High Court’s June 17 order had stayed the state’s new OBC list, which was prepared after its May 2024 judgment quashing the inclusion of 77 communities.