The Supreme Court stated that reservations cannot be based on religion while considering West Bengal’s request to challenge the removal of OBC reservations for Muslims.
The Supreme Court highlighted on Monday that reservations cannot be based on religion while reviewing several petitions against the Calcutta High Court’s decision from May 22. The High Court had annulled the OBC status for certain Muslim communities in West Bengal that had been recognized since 2010, calling the reservations illegal. Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan were considering these petitions, which included one from the West Bengal government. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented the State, while Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi represented the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes, and other senior advocates represented the respondents.
The Court stated it could not address the case that day and requested a summary from the Counsel. Sibal contended that the reservations were based on social and economic factors, not religion. He noted that West Bengal has a minority population of about 28%, with over 27% being Muslims. The Ranganath Commission had suggested a 10% reservation for Muslims. Regarding Hindu communities, 66 were identified as backward. The Backward Commission then identified 76 communities as backward, many of which were already on the Central List, which has now been invalidated. Sibal explained that 44 of these communities are on the Central List, while others are linked to the Mandal Commission and some are associated with Hindu counterparts in SC/ST and OBC categories, totaling 76 communities.
Sibal argued that the Commission had already conducted its review, but the High Court dismissed it, mainly referencing a previous Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling that allowed 4 percent reservation for Muslims. This ruling has been put on hold by the current Court, and the matter is still unresolved. The question of whether Muslims can be classified for reservation remains pending, while the reservation continues in Andhra Pradesh. The High Court’s decision heavily relied on that earlier ruling, which is the core issue. Justice Gavai remarked that “reservation cannot be based on religion.” Sibal responded that this argument is currently on hold in the Andhra case.
Sibal emphasized that the classification is based on social backwardness, not religion. He also asked for a temporary halt to the High Court’s ruling, stressing its negative effect on many students seeking admission and people looking for jobs in the public sector. “This is not about religion; it is about backwardness, which your lordships have recognized. Even among Hindus, it is based on backwardness. This issue affects all groups in society, regardless of their religion, including Christians. The focus is not on religion but on the fact that they belong to a disadvantaged community. This is the matter your lordships need to address,” Sibal stated.
The Court announced it would hear detailed arguments on January 7, 2025. On August 5, the Court requested the West Bengal government to provide measurable data to support the addition of new castes to the OBC list. The state was also asked to explain any consultations with the backward classes commission before these reservations were granted. Additionally, the Court issued a notice regarding a stay application related to a petition that challenged the Calcutta High Court’s decision, which invalidated the OBC reservations given by West Bengal from 2010 to 2012.
In its ruling, which was stated to be prospective, the High Court determined that starting from the date of the ruling, individuals from 114 OBC classes (77+37) could not be appointed to state services or receive any reservation benefits under Article 16(4) of the Constitution until the Backward Classes Commission and the state conducted a new assessment in line with the law. The High Court expressed concern that selecting 77 Muslim classes as Backward was disrespectful to the entire Muslim community, suggesting that this classification was manipulated for political purposes. The Court noted that the events leading to the classification of these 77 classes as OBCs indicated they were being treated as a political tool.
Cause Title: The State Of West Bengal v Amal Chandra Das (Diary No. 27287/2024)
