Calcutta HC to pass interim order today on plea challenging Mamata govt's fresh OBC survey pattern
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court, on Tuesday, will pass an interim order on the petition filed against the pattern of the fresh survey conducted by the West Bengal government to identify the Other Backwards Classes (OBCs) in the state.
The fresh survey was started by the state government following its promise made to the Supreme Court on March 18, while hearing a matter where the state government challenged an earlier order of the Calcutta High Court in May 2024, scrapping all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal since 2010.
On March 18, the state government also promised the apex court to complete the process of the fresh survey within the next three months. However, a petition was filed at the Calcutta High Court challenging the pattern of the fresh survey.
The petitioner accused the state government of entertaining applications only from those 113 OBC communities that were scrapped by the Calcutta High Court.
Last month, when the hearing on the petition came up at the Calcutta High Court, the division bench also raised some questions on the style of conducting the fresh survey by the state government.
The division bench also observed that if individuals genuinely eligible for getting the OBC certificates are not aware of the details of the fresh survey, they will be denied their legitimate rights, and hence, the main purpose of the fresh survey would be defeated.
It also directed the state government to make proper publicity of the fresh survey by issuing advertisements at the grassroots level, starting from village panchayats. The state government counsels, throughout the course of the hearing, had maintained that the fresh survey was conducted as per the court's directions.
To recall, in May last year, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court cancelled all the OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010, which ideally meant that all such certificates issued during the current Trinamool Congress regime in the state since 2011 stood cancelled.
Following this order from the division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, over 5,00,000 OBC certificates issued during that period stood cancelled and could not be used for enjoying the reservation quota for jobs.
The West Bengal government moved the Supreme Court on the Calcutta High Court order, and in March this year, the apex court allowed the state government to conduct a fresh survey to identify the OBCs in the state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
ED officials are evolving by expanding their powers day by day: Madras High Court
Courts often remark that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 is an evolving legislation which often throws up new legal questions 'but, I find that it is actually the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) officials who are evolving day by day by expanding their powers,' in the course of implementing the legislation, said Justice M.S. Ramesh of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (June 17, 2025). Presiding over a Division Bench along with Justice V. Lakshminarayanan to hear a batch of three writ petitions filed by film producer Akash Baskaran and his friend Vikram Ravindran, the senior judge wondered which provision of the PMLA empowers the ED officials to seal a residential/business premises if it was found to be locked when the officials go over there for a search and seizure operation. The question was raised since Mr. Ravindran, serving as director at Akash Baskaran Creative Studios Private Limited, in his two writ petitions, had accused the ED officials of having 'sealed' his office premises at Semmenchery and also a rented residential flat at Poes Garden in Chennai since they were locked and he was not present over there when a search operation was attempted on May 16. Denying the charge of having sealed the two premises, ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh told the Bench that the officials had merely stuck notices on the doors asking the petitioner to get in touch with them to cooperate with a money laundering investigation. However, Justice Ramesh pointed out the notices had clearly stated the premises should not be opened without the permission of the ED officials. Even assuming the words found in the notice would not amount to sealing, from where do you get the power to prevent an individual from entering his home or office, asked Justice Lakshminarayanan. He also said, no sane person would dare to ignore the notice stuck by a public official on his/her door and enter the premises without the fear of being prosecuted for having defied the orders passed by the officer. Mr. Ramesh told the court that Section 17 of the PMLA empowers the ED officials to even break open the locks for conducting the search operation. However, 'we did not want to take the drastic step of breaking open the locks and so we stuck the notices,' the SPP said and told the Bench that the ED officials were willing to remove the notices immediately if the court would permit them to do so. He also told the court the two writ petitioners before the court had so far not been treated as accused in the ongoing TASMAC money laundering investigation and that the necessity to search their premises had arisen only on the basis of credible information received by the Directorate that certain materials related to the offence could be in their possession. He said, the petitioners must cooperate with the probe. After hearing the SPP at length, the judges granted him time till Wednesday (June 18) for producing the documents related to the investigation.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
The shadow of Sanjay: How Indira Gandhi's son shaped the Emergency
Democracy's Darkest Hour chronicles the events leading to and during the Emergency declared on June 25, 1975, under Prime Minister Indira 2 is the story of how a mother's doubts and a son's ambition plunged India into its darkest 24, 1975, New Delhi On the night of June 24, 1975, a Tuesday, a near-full moon illuminated the sky above 1, Safdarjung Road, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's residence. As stars bore silent witness, conspiracies unfolded in that day, the Supreme Court had granted Indira Gandhi a reprieve from a High Court judgment that nullified her 1971 election from Rae Bareli (see Part 1). Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court permitted her to remain Prime Minister pending her appeal, with one condition: she could not vote in the nation awaited her next move, the Prime Minister's staff orchestrated a flurry of meetings and trunk calls. The outcome of these urgent discussions, however, hinged on one individual: Indira's 30-year-old son, Sanjay Moral DilemmaOn June 12, the Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices on two technical counts. Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha ruled that her election agent, Yashpal Kapoor, had not effectively resigned from a government job before the election process began. Additionally, officials of the Uttar Pradesh government, controlled by Indira's opponents, provided rostrums, loudspeakers, barricades, and police support during her election tours. These actions were deemed corrupt practices by the verdict called for her resignation and barred her from contesting elections for six years. Indira's supporters argued these charges were minor and unlikely to withstand Supreme Court scrutiny. To uphold her moral stature, many urged her to resign temporarily until the verdict was overturned. Eminent jurists, including Nani Palkhivala, were consulted, and most expressed confidence in reversing the High Court's order. For a time, it seemed Indira might step down, transforming the crisis into an opportunity to bolster her image. But Sanjay Gandhi, her younger son, remained Wannabe Car MakerAfter failing to complete his formal education, Sanjay Gandhi pursued an apprenticeship with Rolls-Royce in Crewe, England, around 1964 to explore his interest in automotive engineering. He did not finish the program and returned to India, where his mother had become Prime ambition to become a car manufacturer led to the launch of Maruti, a brand he initiated in a Delhi workshop without much success. Soon, he began meddling in politics, serving as his mother's eyes and proximity to the Prime Minister and evident ambition led many Congress leaders to treat him as India's de facto power center. Among his staunchest allies was Bansi Lal, the controversial Chief Minister of Haryana, who facilitated Sanjay's acquisition of vast land tracts for his car and author Khwaja Ahmad Abbas, in his book on the Emergency, describes Sanjay as 'under-sexed and effeminate' with a nasal voice, a characterisation that fueled his enigmatic image. Yet, according to Indira Gandhi, her son was a 'simple boy, a go-getter who neither smoked nor drank.'Sanjay was a perfect contrast to his famous grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, and mother. Unlike the erudite Nehru, he didn't believe in reading anything other than comics. His free-market corporate leanings undermined Indira Gandhi's left-leaning socialism. Some speculated about foreign influences on his rise, though no evidence substantiated claims of CIA in controversies and rumours, Sanjay Gandhi was an enigma to everyone except his Vinod Mehta writes in The Sanjay Story, on the evening of June 24, as the opposition prepared to rally at Ramlila Maidan, Sanjay Gandhi was at the forefront of urging his mother to take decisive action. The Supreme Court's partial stay that day had not resolved the crisis; it had only emboldened her critics. Sanjay, along with SS Ray (West Bengal Chief Minister), pushed for an Emergency to crush the opposition's of the Son (A Fictionalised Account)'Mother, this is a conspiracy,' Sanjay said in his nasal voice. 'The Opposition wants to remove you. And you will not oblige them.''I have no other option. The Supreme Court order has put restrictions. And I don't want to carry on with my hands tied,' replied Indira, her eyes downcast.'The Court didn't ask you to resign. It has only barred you from voting. We have a huge mandate in both houses of Parliament. It is a minor inconvenience,' Sanjay pressed on.'We will appeal the verdict. Our lawyers are confident of getting it rescinded - the charges are frivolous...'Sanjay interjected: 'You can continue as Prime Minister while the appeal is pending. It will be perfectly legal.''But immoral,' Indira Gandhi said with a sigh. 'Moreover, our lawyers want me to resign until the Supreme Court gives its decisions.''Mother, you're too trusting. Don't you see the lawyers might be swayed by the Opposition?' Sanjay urged, his impatience rising. 'My friends say you shouldn't trust anyone.''There is no harm in handing over the reins to someone else until the final verdict. Once my name is cleared, I will return as Prime Minister.'advertisementSanjay's lips curved lightly. 'Who will you nominate - Jagjivan Ram, or YB Chavan? What if they refuse to step down later?'Indira Gandhi's brow creased. Doubt, like a fleeting shadow, passed through her eyes. The son's persuasion took the PM's opponents were unwittingly strengthening Indira Gandhi's dark 25, 1975, New DelhiDelhi's Ramlila Maidan pulsed with tension as thousands gathered under a blistering sun, their roars echoing defiance. Only a few days ago, Indira Gandhi had displayed her might with a gigantic rally at the Boat Club, where she had declared her resolve to fight the Opposition. The air crackled with anticipation as Opposition titans, Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) and Morarji Desai, mounted the rostrum, facing a sea of curious faces. Everyone was eager to know if Indira Gandhi's grip, weakened by the Allahabad High Court's verdict against her election, would be the aging revolutionary, thundered, quoting Ramdhari Singh Dinkar's poetry: 'Singhasan Khaali Karo Ke Janata Aati Hai.' The crowd erupted, electrified. Then, in a chilling crescendo, JP hurled a daring challenge: he urged the army and police to defy 'unconstitutional and immoral' orders from Indira's 25, 1975, 1, Safdarjung RoadadvertisementJP's words hung like a guillotine over Indira Gandhi's authority. In the past, Indira Gandhi had defied and broken her party 'Syndicate', dismembered Pakistan, and defied the US and its 7th Fleet. Her hubris hurt, she was not willing to bow down to JP and his rag-tag team of opposition later, as dusk fell, Indira struck back. Facing mounting pressure from the opposition and internal party dynamics, Indira Gandhi summoned SS Ray for consultation. Encouraged by Sanjay, Ray drafted a letter for President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to proclaim a state of Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing "internal disturbances" as the President signed just after midnight. Power to major newspaper offices in Delhi was cut off to prevent immediate reporting. Opposition leaders, including Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and LK Advani were arrested in a sweeping 26, 1975, 7:30 AMThe BBC World Service broke the news of the Emergency and the arrests to the public. At 8:00 AM, Indira Gandhi announced it on All India Radio. The broadcast was brief, delivered in English and Hindi. 'The President has declared an Emergency. There is nothing to panic about,' she said in a calm voice. The Prime Minister cited 'internal disturbances' and threats to India's security. Referring to the Opposition rally a day ago, particularly JP's 'total revolution' campaign and his remarks urging the army and police to disobey 'immoral' orders, she said there was a conspiracy to destabilise the a hurriedly called meeting of the Cabinet, the Prime Minister informed her colleagues of the decision. While most listened in silence, only Defence Minister Swaran Singh ventured to speak: 'Is an Emergency necessary?' he asked Singh was to pay a cost for this perceived dissent. And India was to enter its darkest hour since Independence - a period that was to last 21 months, underlined by terror, censorship, human rights violations, and excesses like forced The Reign of Terror
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Not Karnataka High Court's role to demand apology: Top court slams Thug Life ban
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a notice in the case concerning the ban on the release of Kamal Haasan's Tamil film Thug Life in Karnataka, criticising groups that threatened to ban the film's release over controversial remarks allegedly made by the court said the rule of law cannot be held hostage to mob threats and warned that "groups of hooligans" cannot be allowed to decide what gets screened in someone has made a statement, you counter it with another statement. You cannot threaten to burn down theatres,' the bench remarked. It added that the people of Karnataka are free to disagree with Haasan, but fundamental rights must be protected.'If enlightened people of Karnataka and Bengaluru believe his statement was wrong, they can issue a statement saying so. Why threaten to burn down cinemas?'The Suprene Court transferred the plea filed by the film's producer from the Karnataka High Court to itself and asked the state government to file its reply. It questioned the role of the High Court, especially over suggestions that the actor apologise to resolve the issue.'There is something wrong with the system when one person makes a statement and everyone gets involved. Why should the High Court say 'express an apology'? That is not its role,' the court emphasised that once a film is cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it must be allowed to be released. 'People can choose not to watch it. But we cannot allow threats and intimidation to decide if a film gets released,' the court court also quoted past judgements, including the Bombay High Court verdict in the Mi Nathuram Boltoy play case, and the Imran Pratapgarhi ruling, to support the argument that differing views must be allowed in a its role, the court said: 'We are the custodians of the rule of law. That is what the Supreme Court is for.'Tune InTrending Reel IN THIS STORY#Karnataka
