SC suspends Calcutta HC order staying new OBC list in West Bengal

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday suspended the operation of the Calcutta High Court order, which stayed the West Bengal government's move to finalise a new list of Other Backwards Classes (OBCs) in the state.

Acting on a plea by the West Bengal government, a bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria stayed the high court order, finding it erroneous.

The court also pointed out reservation was a part of the Executive exercise.

“Whatever is there, the commission has followed some methodology, which may be correct or not correct, that would be decided by the high court. We will stay the order. Prima facie, the order is erroneous,” the bench said.

The court said, it may direct the high court to decide the matter within 6-8 weeks.

“We will request the Chief Justice to constitute a special bench, except the learned judge who is presiding,” the bench said.

The court said that the status quo was required to be maintained in the matter.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for the West Bengal government, asked the apex court to stay the high court order as several appointments have been stalled because of it.

He pointed out contempt petitions have also now been filed before the high court.

At the outset, the court said it will issue notice in the matter.

“This is surprising! How can the High Court stay like this? Reservation is part of the Executive functions,” the bench said.

The court pointed out right from Indra Sawhney (1992), the position is that the executive can do it.

"We are surprised with the reasoning given by the high court," the bench said.

The court had earlier expressed reservations on the order passed by the high court, putting on hold an effort by the state to finalise a new list of OBCs.

The West Bengal government challenged the validity of June 17 high court order staying the new OBC list. The state prepared the new list after the high court, in May 2024, quashed the inclusion of as many as 77 communities in the OBC list.

In a separate petition, the state government challenged the May order before the top court. Subsequently, the state government told the high court that it would conduct a fresh exercise of identification of OBCs.

The high court, while staying the new OBC list, said prima facie the state was attempting to reintroduce the same OBC classes it had previously struck down.