Calcutta HC stays implementation of new West Bengal OBC list
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday stayed the implementation of a West Bengal government notification classifying 140 communities as Other Backward Classes, Bar and Bench reported.
A bench comprising Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha told the state government not to take steps based on the list till July 31, when the case will be heard next.
The West Bengal government had earlier this month issued a notification adding 76 sub-castes to the Other Backward Classes category, taking the total number of communities in the grouping to 140.
Out of these, 80 communities are from among Muslims, while 60 are non-Muslims, The Indian Express reported. Muslims comprise 57.1% of the population included in the OBC category.
The state government's previous list of OBCs had 113 sub-groups, of which 77 were Muslims and 36 non-Muslims. However, the High Court had in May 2024 struck down the list, and had reduced OBC reservations from 17% to 7%, The Times of India reported.
The new list would allow the state government to restore OBC reservations to 17%.
The High Court's May 2024 decision was expected to affect nearly five lakh certificates. The state government's challenge to the verdict is pending before the Supreme Court.
Opposition leader Suvendu Adhikari claimed that the new list prepared by the government amounted to contempt of court, and alleged that the Trinamool Congress government was trying to provide reservations in education institutes and government jobs on the basis of religion.
The Bharatiya Janata Party leader claimed that before 2010, there were 66 communities in the OBC list, of which only 11 were from among Muslims, The Indian Express reported.
However, the Trinamool Congress said that backwardness, and not religion, was the criterion for groups being included in the OBC list. It accused the BJP of trying to pit Hindus against Muslims and following a 'divide and rule' policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Ashok Vihar and Wazirpur join Delhi's demolition overdrive: Here are other areas witnessing clean-up measures
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) initiated a demolition drive the national capital's Delhi Ashok Vihar and Wazirpur on Monday, with police security. "A demolition drive is ongoing in Ashok Vihar. About 250 police officers are deployed there," stated DCP (Northwest) Bhisham Singh. A Special Task Force (STF) unit was deployed at Ashok Vihar's Jailorwala Bagh area on Monday morning with excavators to conduct the clearance operation. More than 200 residences built on government property were scheduled to be demolished. Furthermore, there was a parallel operation near Wazirpur's railway line to clear unauthorised structures. "Two companies of paramilitary force, along with Delhi Police personnel, are present on the spot to ensure that law and order is not breached," confirmed a senior police officer. Live Events This operation marks the second clearance activity in the area this month. Following the previous operation on June 2, Chief Minister Rekha Gupta stated, "If a railway line is encroached and there is an accident, who will be responsible?" Demolition drives in Kalkaji, Madarsi Camp Earlier this month, DDA undertook a demolition drive at Bhoomihin Camp, located in Kalkaji area following directions from the High Court on June 11. The DDA had earlier issued an official notice to all residents of Bhoomihin Camp, directing them to vacate their premises in view of the demolition of illegal huts,. Residents were given three days, June 8, 9 and 10 to vacate their huts. The notice stated that failure to comply will lead to demolition action by the authorities. The operation was carried out to resolve the flooding issues caused by the narrowed drain, which obstructs water flow during heavy rains. On June 1, a demolition drive at Madrasi camp in Jangpura, South East Delhi, was conducted by the authorities, on the orders of the Delhi High Court, to clear encroachments in the area along the Barapulla drain. Stay on Batla House demolition drive On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court granted an interim stay on the demolition of six properties in the Batla House area of Okhla in South East Delhi. Residents of these properties have challenged the notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in May 2025. Petitioners claimed that out of these six properties, some are outside Khasra Number 279, whiddle others are within this Khasra. Residents of these properties said that their properties are covered within the PM Uday Scheme. In an order passed on Monday, Justice Tejas Karia ordered to maintain the status quo till the next date of hearing. Meanwhile, the High Court has issued notice to the DDA and sought a response within four weeks. Petitions are to be heard on July 10 before roster bench. (With agency inputs)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
Can Iran withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and go nuclear?
Iran, an Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT) signatory since 1970, is now considering legislation that could push the country toward leaving the treaty amid growing tensions with Israel and a censure from the IAEA. Citing Article X of the treaty, Tehran may legally exit by claiming its 'supreme interests' are at risk. The last country to do so — North Korea — became a nuclear state read more A satellite image shows the Fordo nuclear facility in Iran in this handout image dated June 14, 2025. Maxar Technologies via Reuters Tehran is considering a step which will undoubtedly have far-reaching global consequences: leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The move, still in its early legislative stages, comes amid fresh criticism from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and While Iranian officials continue to reject any intention to pursue nuclear weapons, this development has put that narrative in limbo. Iran considers exiting the NPT Iran's Foreign Ministry confirmed that lawmakers in Tehran are preparing a bill that could move the country toward withdrawing from the NPT. The proposal, still in its preliminary phase, was prompted by what officials described as hostile international developments. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'In light of recent developments, we will take an appropriate decision. Government has to enforce parliament bills but such a proposal is just being prepared and we will coordinate in the later stages with parliament,' said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei at a press briefing. He suggested that the recent IAEA censure, along with Israel's military assault on Iran, were directly influencing Iran's strategic direction. Although Iran's state media noted that no final decision had yet been made, and that parliamentary discussions remained at an early legislative stage, the introduction of such a bill signals a shift in Tehran's nuclear policy posture — especially given its consistent prior insistence on remaining within the NPT framework. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also reaffirmed Iran's adherence to a religious edict issued by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei prohibiting nuclear weapons, maintaining that Iran's atomic ambitions are strictly civilian. What the Non-Proliferation Treaty entails The NPT, established in 1970, is designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while permitting the development of peaceful nuclear energy under international oversight. The treaty has three primary pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear technology. A total of 191 countries are parties to the treaty, making it one of the most widely supported arms control agreements globally. Only five countries — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States — are officially recognized under the treaty as nuclear weapons states. These five, defined as having tested nuclear weapons before January 1, 1967, are also the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In contrast, countries like India, Pakistan and Israel never signed the NPT. Israel, while never confirming or denying its nuclear arsenal, is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons and operates outside the treaty's framework. Importantly, the NPT includes an exit clause. Article X allows any party to withdraw from the treaty if it determines that 'extraordinary events… have jeopardised the supreme interests of its country.' A three-month notice must be given to all other treaty members and the UN Security Council. Since the treaty's inception, only one country — North Korea — has exercised this right, announcing its withdrawal in 2003. It went on to test its first nuclear device in 2006. What prompted Iran's potential withdrawal Iran has been under increasing international pressure over its nuclear programme, which it maintains is peaceful and aimed at energy generation. However, on June 13, the IAEA's 35-member Board of Governors passed a resolution stating that Iran was in breach of its NPT obligations — the first such formal censure in nearly two decades. The resolution followed a May 31 report circulated among member states alleging that Tehran had failed to provide full and timely cooperation, particularly regarding unexplained uranium traces found at several undeclared sites. The report concluded that Iran had not offered credible explanations for the presence of nuclear material at locations that were not disclosed under its safeguards agreements. The agency indicated that these traces likely originated from activities more than 20 years ago. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While the IAEA highlighted the need for greater transparency, Iranian officials strongly rejected the findings. Iran's Foreign Ministry and its Atomic Energy Organisation denounced the resolution as politically driven and lacking in technical merit. Following the resolution, Israel launched military strikes on Iranian territory, targeting nuclear-related infrastructure. These attacks, beginning June 13, have been cited by Iranian officials as the trigger for the parliamentary move toward NPT withdrawal. 'Those voting for the resolution prepared the ground for the attack,' said Baghaei, emphasizing that such developments 'naturally affect the strategic decisions of the state.' Iran responded with retaliatory missile strikes, further intensifying the regional confrontation. What Iran's withdrawal may mean for the NPT Iran's invocation of the NPT's Article X, allowing withdrawal in the event of extraordinary threats to national security, may be grounded in its experience of recent direct military strikes and the killing of nuclear scientists. Analysts have commented that if such attacks and assassinations of key personnel don't qualify as threats to 'supreme interests,' then it is unclear what does. Experts warn that if Iran follows a similar trajectory to North Korea, it could irreversibly damage the credibility of the NPT and encourage other countries to reassess their commitments to the treaty. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some observers have noted that Iran's potential exit could be a watershed moment for global non-proliferation, one that might encourage further departures and increase proliferation risks globally. What happens if Iran exits the NPT If Iran formally exits the NPT, it would no longer be legally obligated to allow inspections by the IAEA. This loss of access would eliminate international oversight of Iran's nuclear facilities, opening the possibility for unrestricted uranium enrichment and advancement toward weaponisation. While Iranian officials continue to deny any intention to build a bomb, critics argue that leaving the treaty would signal a shift toward such capabilities. 'The Zionist regime is the only possessor of weapons of mass destruction in the region,' Baghaei said, pointing to Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal as a key point of contention. Iran has long argued that it is being unfairly targeted by international institutions while a non-signatory state like Israel faces no scrutiny. The implications of an Iranian withdrawal extend beyond its borders. A nuclear-armed Iran could spark a regional arms race, prompting countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to explore their own nuclear options. Such a development would undermine what little nuclear restraint remains in a region already plagued by geopolitical rivalry, sectarian divisions and proxy warfare. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Israel has also repeatedly signalled that it considers Iranian nuclear capability an existential threat. As history shows — from the 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor to current operations against Iran — Tel Aviv is likely to take preemptive military action should Iran appear close to achieving nuclear breakout. The threat of a wider, potentially direct military conflict cannot be discounted. Iran's move comes as the NPT nears its next review conference, scheduled for 2026. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Illegal migration from Bangladesh has been a problem for decades. Why did no one act?
The Government of India has finally woken up to the problem of illegal immigration from Bangladesh. There are reports from different states about local police identifying the Bangladeshis and deporting them. In Delhi, during the last six months, at least 770 immigrants have been deported; some were airlifted to Tripura and the rest sent by the surface route. In Assam, the state government is systematically tracking down individuals declared illegal foreigners by the Foreigners' Tribunals and pushing them back into the no man's land between India and Bangladesh. It is reported that 30,000 people who had been declared foreign nationals by the Tribunals in Assam have just disappeared. There are reports of deportations from Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana. Whatever action is being taken, however, amounts to a trickle compared to the very large number of Bangladeshis settled in India. In the wake of Partition in 1947, many Hindus crossed over to India from East Pakistan to the adjoining states of Assam, West Bengal, and Tripura. Later, however, when the Pakistan Army started persecuting the Bengalis, a large number of Muslims also crossed over to India. After the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, it was expected that the new regime would maintain communal harmony. However, that did not happen, and Bangladeshis continued to pour into India, partly due to religious discrimination but mostly for economic opportunity and in search of a better life. According to the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, nearly 3.5 million people 'disappeared' from East Pakistan between 1951 and 1961 and another 1.5 million between 1961 and 1974. Some Bangladesh intellectuals justified the mass migration of people to India as lebensraum – the legitimate movement of people from high-density to low-density areas. The Government of India's response was half-hearted. Migration slowed down only after India started fencing the 40967.7 km long border with Bangladesh. The Task Force on Border Management, headed by Madhav Godbole, in its report submitted in August 2000, said that 'there is an all-round failure in India to come to grips with the problem of illegal immigration'. The report went on to say that 'facts are well known, opinions are firmed up, and the operating system is in position, but the tragedy is that despite this, nothing substantial happens due to catharsis of deciding in this regard due to sharp division of interest among the political class'. The Task Force estimated that there were about 15 million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in the country and that about 3 lakh Bangladeshi nationals were entering India illegally every year. The Task Force report was never placed in the public domain because it was brutally honest. The very next year, in February 2001, the Group of Ministers, in their recommendations on national security, while taking care of Bangladesh's sensitivity in the matter, reiterated that 'the massive illegal immigration poses a grave danger to our security, social harmony and economic well-being'. The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), observed that 'there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing 'external aggression and internal disturbance' on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals' and that therefore, it is 'the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution'. All these warnings by the Task Force, the Group of Ministers and the Supreme Court remained unheeded. There was no plan of action to deal with the problem. Now that our relations with Bangladesh have soured, the Government of India has started deporting the Bangladeshi illegal immigrants. The total number of illegal immigrants deported so far would be a couple of thousand only. The drive must continue — with greater vigour — whether the Bangladesh government cooperates or not. It is relevant that the US is deporting all illegal immigrants from different parts of the world. Even Pakistan has repatriated 1.3 million Afghanistan nationals back to their country. There is no reason why India should be hesitant or have any reservations about acting against illegal immigrants from any country. Meanwhile, the chief minister of Assam has given a new angle to our relations with Bangladesh when he said that Bangladesh has 'two of its own chicken necks'. One is from Dakshin Dinajpur to South-West Garo Hills, and the other is the Chittagong Corridor from South Tripura to the Bay of Bengal. The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) inhabited by the Chakma tribes, who are mostly Buddhists, are in a state of turbulence. There are serious problems of ethnic identity, land rights, and cultural preservation of the indigenous tribes. Thousands of Chakmas have fled to India and have been settled in the north-eastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura and Mizoram. Was Himanta Biswa Sarma speaking on his own, or was he acting as the Centre's mouthpiece? In any case, there is food for thought. The writer is a former Member of the National Security Advisory Board and Director General, BSF
