Source:  Calcutta High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Tapabrata Chakraborty stayed the West Bengal government's move to prepare a new OBC list, observing it prima facie reintroduced previously quashed classes and quotas through executive action in violation of prior judicial orders.  

• The Calcutta High Court held this in the matter of Amal Chandra Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Amal Chandra Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.? 

• The dispute originated from a batch of Public Interest Litigations challenging the identification and classification of 77 classes as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in West Bengal, which were disposed of by a judgment dated 22nd May, 2024. 
• The West Bengal government had approached the Supreme Court against this order through a Special Leave Petition, informing the apex court that a fresh commission had been instituted for OBC classification. 
• In May 2024, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court had cancelled all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010, with the Supreme Court observing that reservation cannot be granted on the basis of religion while questioning the state's classification system. 
• Following the 2024 judgment, the state government had categorically stated that all appointments would be stopped or deferred until the Supreme Court's decision on their appeal. 
• However, fresh writ petitions were filed challenging various notifications and a benchmark survey conducted by the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes through memos dated 28th February and 1st March, 2025. 
• The state government proceeded to issue multiple notifications between May and June 2025, sub-categorizing backward classes into OBC-A and OBC-B categories. 
• These notifications increased OBC reservation percentage to 17% (10% for OBC-A and 7% for OBC-B) and included additional classes in the state list. 
• The petitioners alleged that these executive actions were taken in violation of the earlier court judgment and without proper legislative approval. 
• The controversy intensified when the state issued further notifications in June 2025, including new procedures for OBC certificate issuance, despite ongoing legal proceedings.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court observed that the respondents appeared to be proceeding in "hot haste" and attempting to reintroduce the same classes and percentage of reservations that had been previously struck down by the division bench and upheld by the Supreme Court. 
• The judges noted that the state was trying to bring back these classifications through executive orders rather than in exercise of the state's legislative functions, and this was being done before the court could scrutinise the steps taken by the Commission. 
• The court emphasized that the state ought to have placed the reports and bills before the Legislature for amendment and introduction of classes in the Schedule of the 2012 Act, rather than issuing executive notifications. 
• It was observed that the executive notifications were in direct conflict with the earlier judgment and had not been issued under the provisions of the 2012 Act. 
• The court noted that it had previously struck down Section 16 of the 2012 Act, which empowered the State Executive to amend schedules, and had consequently struck down 37 classes included through executive exercise of this section. 
• The judges observed that they had also struck down Section 5(a) of the 2012 Act, which distributed reservation percentages of 10% and 7% to sub-classified classes. 
• The court clarified that while it had not interfered with executive orders classifying 66 classes prior to 2010, and since this aspect had not been interfered with by the Supreme Court, there should be no hindrance in conducting recruitment and admission processes considering these pre-2010 OBC classes. 
• Consequently, the court stayed all the contested notifications and related consequential steps until the end of July 2025 or until further orders, whichever was earlier. 

What is Article 16 of the Constitution? 

• Article 16(4) empowers the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. 
• The term "backward class" in Article 16(4) includes Other Backward Classes (OBCs) along with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as established through judicial interpretation. 
• In the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1993) case, the Supreme Court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs in central government services, recognising caste as an acceptable indicator of backwardness. 
• The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney established that reservations under Article 16(4) are restricted to initial appointments and cannot extend to promotions for OBCs, unlike SCs and STs. 
• The Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) case held that caste cannot be the sole determining criteria for gauging backwardness of a community, and factors like poverty or place of residence should also be considered. 
• The concept of "creamy layer" exclusion applies to OBCs, meaning the more affluent sections within OBC communities are excluded from reservation benefits. 
• Article 16(4B) allows unfilled reserved vacancies from one year to be treated as separate class of vacancies in succeeding years, which applies to OBC reservations along with SC/ST reservations. 
• The 50% ceiling on total reservations established in Indra Sawhney applies to OBC reservations, though this limit is not rigid and may be exceeded in exceptional circumstances.