In Major Setback For TMC Govt, Calcutta High Court Halts New OBC List; BJP Hails Ruling
Last Updated:
The court clarified that the original list of 66 OBC communities recognised before 2010 will remain unaffected by the ruling.
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday issued an interim stay on the West Bengal government's OBC list notification, putting a hold on all actions and processes based on the new list of Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities.
The court was hearing a series of petitions challenging the state government's executive order that added 140 subgroups—80 of which are Muslim—to the newly announced OBC list.
The division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha imposed the stay, which affects various key areas, including college and university admissions, government job recruitments, and social welfare benefits.
The court also stayed the implementation of the newly introduced 100-point roster for jobs, which had been designed based on the updated OBC list.
However, the court clarified that the original list of 66 OBC communities recognised before 2010 will remain unaffected by the ruling.
The previous list, which was largely invalidated by the High Court on May 22, 2024, had 113 subgroups, comprising 77 Muslim and 36 non-Muslim communities.
The Bengal Assembly passed the new notification last week in response to the court's earlier decision, which struck down the categorisation of OBC-A and OBC-B groups introduced after 2011.
Several petitions challenging the new state executive order were submitted to the High Court, with the issue still being under consideration by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners urged the court to stay the order, describing it as a 'blatant violation" of the High Court division bench's ruling issued on May 22.
The court order, being viewed as a major setback for the ruling Trinamool, was largely hailed by the BJP today, with Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari calling it a 'landmark verdict."
'I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta for the landmark decision to stay the inclusion of 76 Muslim classes in the new OBC list prepared by the Mamata Banerjee Government. This is a resounding victory of the Judiciary against an arrogant State Government that has repeatedly flouted constitutional norms for its narrow political gains," he said in an X post.
I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta for the landmark decision to stay the inclusion of 76 Muslim classes in the new OBC list prepared by the Mamata Banerjee Government. This is a resounding victory of the Judiciary against an arrogant State…— Suvendu Adhikari (@SuvenduWB) June 17, 2025
Adhikari added that the Mamata Banerjee-led TMC government's approach, reflected in the inclusion of nearly 90 per cent of new Muslim groups in the OBC list, represents a 'direct affront to the principles of equality and fairness."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
When clash erupted between T.N. government and Governor on appointing a Vice-Chancellor 40 years ago
Around a dozen State universities in Tamil Nadu currently do not have Vice-Chancellors, as Tamil Nadu remains embroiled in a legal tussle over shifting the authority to appoint them, from the Governor (in his capacity as Chancellor) to the State government. Interestingly, it is not the first time Tamil Nadu has witnessed a disagreement between the government and the Governor on this issue. A conflict took place four decades ago over the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University. In 1985, during M.G. Ramachandran's tenure as Chief Minister, tensions simmered over Governor S.L. Khurana's use of his authority to appoint Vice-Chancellors. That March, Education Minister C. Aranganayagam remarked that difficulties in appointing Vice-Chancellors 'seemed peculiar to States where non-Congress (I) governments were in office.' His comment came just months after the AIADMK-Congress (I) alliance swept to power in Tamil Nadu in the aftermath of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination. Referring to similar controversies in Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, Aranganayagam observed, according to The Hindu, that Governors in Congress (I)-ruled states appeared to have no issue accepting recommendations from the State government. 'This problem arose only in non-Congress (I) governed States,' he said. In the Assembly, Aranganayagam argued it would be better to vest the power to oversee universities in State governments rather than with the Governor or the Central government. Against this backdrop, in October 1985, Governor Khurana appointed S. Krishnaswamy, a well-regarded biologist, as Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University. The appointment caught the State government by surprise. Aranganayagam said the government had recommended C.A. Perumal, Head of the Political Science Department at University of Madras, for the post. He stated: 'The practice so far has been that the Governor consults the Chief Minister before making the appointment; in this case, the Chief Minister was not consulted. Therefore, with the Chief Minister's consent, the advice to the Governor is being forwarded. We have nothing against Dr. Krishnaswamy personally.' When asked whether the government had officially conveyed its preference to the Governor, Aranganayagam admitted that he had only informally suggested Perumal's name, but insisted the Governor ought to have consulted the Chief Minister before finalising the appointment. Later that evening, the Raj Bhavan issued a statement expressing surprise at the Minister's remarks. It emphasised that this was not the first time the Governor had appointed a Vice-Chancellor without direct consultation, noting that he had made similar decisions at least six times in the previous three years. The Governor's office stated that the process had been consistent and that in some instances — such as appointments to Madras and Bharathidasan Universities — he had disagreed with the Education Minister's recommendations and independently made the final call. The Governor's position, it said, was to choose the best candidate from the panel submitted. The Raj Bhavan also cited Section 11 of the Madurai Kamaraj University Act to support the legality of Krishnaswamy's appointment. Aranganayagam countered this by invoking Article 163(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that the Governor act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. He argued that since the Governor holds the post of Chancellor by virtue of being Governor, he cannot wield more power in the Chancellor's role than he does as Governor. He also denied that the appointment followed past practice. 'In all previous cases, the Governor appointed Vice-Chancellors only after consulting the Chief Minister and obtaining his concurrence; in this case, he has not done so,' he said. Aranganayagam added that the issue was not about the individual selected, but about the principle of who holds the appointing authority. Aranganayam felt persons belonging to the state were better equipped than 'others coming from outside' to select the appropriate person for a post. However, just a few hours later, the State government issued an official release, stating: 'It is most unfortunate that an unnecessary controversy has arisen over the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University. The Government, after careful consideration, holds that the appointment of Dr. S. Krishnaswamy by the Governor-Chancellor is valid and on merit. The Governor's decision is being implemented by the Government.' The Hindu reported: 'What happened between the Education Minister's assertion in the morning and the issue of the press release in the evening (putting an end to the controversy) is not quite clear. It is, however, learnt that, on behalf of the Chief Minister, an emissary (one of his Cabinet colleagues) called on the Governor at the Raj Bhavan in the afternoon and sorted out the matter.' Krishnaswamy later assumed charge as Vice-Chancellor. He told journalists he was pleased that the Education Minister had clarified, 'We have nothing against Prof. Krishnaswamy personally.' Incidentally, then Finance Minister V.R. Nedunchezhiyan welcomed the appointment, saying, 'I am happy that an internationally-known scientist has been chosen for the position.'
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Has US moved moved jets, warships to help Israel? What we know
The United States is rapidly shifting military aircraft, warships and personnel across the Middle East to shield Israel from Iranian attacks as President Donald Trump warns Tehran that America's 'patience is wearing thin.' In a series of social media posts, Trump declared that the US had gained 'complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' signalling the possibility of deepening US involvement in the ongoing conflict. According to news agency AP, Washington may directly target Iran's underground nuclear facilities - most notably, the heavily fortified Fordow enrichment plant. Only the US possesses the bunker-busting GBU-57 bomb capable of striking the deep subterranean site, deliverable solely by the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. While no B-2s are currently deployed to the region, US officials say bombers could fly from Missouri's Whiteman Air Force Base for such a mission, in a 30-hour round-trip operation involving multiple refuelings. The Pentagon has fortified its air presence, quietly deploying additional fighter jets and refueling tankers to undisclosed bases across the Middle East. According to open-source flight tracking data, US refueling aircraft and fighters have also been positioned in key European locations, including the UK, Spain, Germany, and Greece. Though American aircraft have not entered Iranian airspace, they have intercepted incoming Iranian missiles and provided support for Israeli defenses. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth emphasized that current US activity remains defensive: 'We are taking every step to ensure our people are safe.' At sea, US Navy warships, including the USS The Sullivans, USS Thomas Hudner, and USS Arleigh Burke, have shot down Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israeli cities. The Arleigh Burke has since repositioned, while the USS Carl Vinson strike group remains in the Arabian Sea, poised to protect US troops and regional interests. The USS Nimitz is en route to replace the Vinson, signaling continued US readiness. Destroyers are also stationed in the Red Sea, Western Mediterranean, and Baltic Sea, highlighting the global scope of US naval coordination amid the conflict. Iran and Israel exchanged fresh missile volleys on Wednesday as the air war between the longtime foes entered its sixth day. Iran launched two separate barrages targeting Israeli cities overnight, with explosions heard over Tel Aviv. In retaliation, Israel issued evacuation warnings for parts of Tehran and Karaj, followed by airstrikes that reportedly struck military sites near the Iranian capital. The Israeli military claims to have control over Iranian airspace and has vowed to intensify operations. Iran, meanwhile, has reported at least 224 deaths - most of them civilians. Israel reported 24 civilian casualties.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
AIMPLB members demands withdrawal of Waqf Amendment Act 2025
I Suleiman Khan, assistant general secretary and State Convener of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and AIMPLB district convener Dr. Mohammed Asgar Chulbul criticised the Central Government for introducing the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, and said that they would continue to protest until the bill is repealed. Mr. Suleiman and Dr. Chulbul, addressing joint press persons in Kalaburagi city on Tuesday (June 17, 2025), alleged that the newly amended Waqf Act is aimed at weakening the foundations of Waqf governance and undermining the rights of Muslim community. They alleged that the government wants to control the Waqf properties by regulating their management and the power it gets through the new Act to determine whether the property belongs to Waqf or not. Opposing the inclusion of non-Muslim members on the Waqf Boards, Mr. Suleiman said that it would interfere with the Muslim community's right to manage its own affairs, given by the Constitution. Dr. Chulbul alleged that the Modi-led Government was targeting the Muslim community by misusing its majority to bring in discriminatory amendments to the Waqf Act forcibly against the will of the community. Furthermore, the condition requiring a Waqf (donor) to be a practicing Muslim for at least five years is not only against the Indian legal framework and constitutional Articles 14 and 26 but also conflicts with Islamic Sharia principles, he added. 'We wish to make it clear that these amendments not only violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 25, 26 and 29 of the Indian Constitution but also expose the government's malicious intent to gain total control over the administration of Waqf properties' Dr. Chulbul expressed. These new Waqf Amendment Act prevent the Muslim minority from freely managing their own religious endowments (Waqf). Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution guarantee the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, as well as the right to establish and manage religious and charitable institutions, but the newly enforced law deprives Muslim community of these fundamental rights. They urged the immediate intervention of the President of India to withdraw the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, citing it as undemocratic and anti-minority.
