Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order pausing new OBC list in Bengal
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai termed the impugned Calcutta High Court order both "surprising" and "prima facie erroneous'.
The Bench, also comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, disagreed with the Calcutta HC's view that the West Bengal government ought to have taken the state Assembly's approval before introducing the new OBC list.
'How can the Calcutta High Court pass a stay like this? Reservation is part of the Executive functions. This is the settled law right from the Indira Sawhney (judgment) that the Executive can do it. Executive instructions are enough for providing reservations and legislation is not necessary,' remarked the apex court.
After parties urged the top court to decide the matter itself, the CJI Gavai-led Bench issued a notice on the West Bengal government's Special Leave Petition and listed the case for hearing after two weeks.
'Issue notice. In the meantime, there shall be a stay to the impugned order (of the Calcutta HC),' the Supreme Court said.
In an interim order passed on June 17, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had asked the West Bengal government not to publish the final notification for the new OBC list till July 31 this year.
A Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha prima facie opined that the previous four to five notifications issued by the West Bengal government on the fresh survey to prepare the fresh OBC list were in violation of the apex court orders.
The fresh OBC list was supposed to include 140 communities, and the interim stay was perceived as a major blow to the Mamata Banerjee-led state government.
In its plea filed before the apex court, the state government has argued that if the interim stay imposed by the Calcutta High Court on issuing the final notification for the fresh OBC list prevails till July 31, the process for recruitments under this category, as directed by the apex court earlier, would be stalled.
Earlier in May 2024, the Calcutta High Court had 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.
The West Bengal government had moved the Supreme Court against this, and in March this year, the apex court allowed the state government to conduct a fresh survey to identify the OBCs in the state.
Claiming that the fresh survey process was a blatant example of appeasement politics, a petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court challenging the pattern of the survey.
The plea accused the state government of entertaining applications only from those 113 OBC communities that were scrapped by the Calcutta High Court last year.
In an interim order passed on June 17, the Justice Chakraborty-headed Bench issued a stay on the issuance of the final notification for a revised OBC list in West Bengal till July 31.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Technology can bring legal aid to doorstep: SC judge
Using technology 'thoughtfully and inclusively…can bridge the persistent gaps in our justice system', said Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant Saturday, and underlined that it cannot, however, replace the human element and 'the heart of justice must remain human'. Speaking at the Justice RC Lahoti Memorial Lecture in Manav Rachna University, Faridabad, on 'Bridging the Gap: Reimagining Legal Aid in the Digital Age for Inclusive Justice in India', Justice Kant said: 'With the right vision and safeguards, technology can break geographical barriers, democratise legal awareness, and bring legal aid to the doorstep — or rather the palm of every citizen. If harnessed thoughtfully and inclusively, it can bridge the persistent gaps in our justice system.' He said that though the country has made big technological strides, 'yet, access to justice remains largely analogue.' 'Courts are online, laws are also digitised, but quality legal aid has yet to trickle down to the last person in line. The digital divide has become the new face of inequality,' Justice Kant said. Emphasising the need 'to address the challenges faced by linguistic and cultural minorities,' Justice Kant said that 'digital platforms must not only be multilingual but also culturally nuanced' and 'when citizens see their own stories, customs, and worldviews reflected in legal education content, barriers of alienation and mistrust crumble, making way for genuine engagement and confidence in the system.' Justice Kant called for holding virtual Lok Adalats by harnessing secure video platforms but cautioned that 'the excitement of technology must be tempered with restraint. The digital divide is very real.' 'No technology is neutral. The tools we build reflect the values we embed in them. As we digitise legal aid, we must design systems with built-in ethics. Privacy must be paramount…' he said. Justice Kant said, 'artificial intelligence algorithms must be designed to flag, not exacerbate, the biases so entrenched in society' and that 'privacy by design, user consent, and continuous public oversight should be the hallmarks of all digital legal solutions, assuring citizens that their quest for justice does not come at the cost of their security or dignity.'
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Technology is powerful but cannot replicate human touch in justice delivery or legal aid: Justice Surya Kant
Supreme Court judge, Justice Surya Kant, said that though technology can make justice delivery systems and legal aid efficient, it cannot replace the human touch. 'Technology is only a tool. The heart of justice must remain human... In a world where machines write poetry and algorithms predict behaviour, we must remember: justice is still a human act. It is not rendered by bandwidth but by conscience. The greatness of the law lies not in authority, but in service; not in rigidity, but in compassion,' Justice Kant said. He was speaking on bridging the 'digital gap' and 'reimagining legal aid in the digital age for inclusive justice in India' at the Justice RC Lahoti Memorial Lecture on Saturday. His speech touched on significant statements regarding the limitations of technology in the field of law. Justice Kant is the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and in line for appointment as the next Chief Justice of India in November as per the seniority norm. The senior top court judge said the legal aid system cannot become a 'factory of canned responses'. 'Automated systems are efficient, but they cannot replace the human touch. Legal aid cannot become a factory of canned responses; it must not reduce people's problems to ticket numbers. There must always be a human fallback — someone to listen, explain, and reassure,' he said. The judge said human empathy was central to justice, whether it was a lawyer responding to a distressed call, a judge presiding over a video-enabled hearing or even a chatbot answering a query. Technology was powerful, but could not replicate the human element at the heart of legal aid. Pointing to Article 39A of the Constitution, Justice Kant said the constitutional provision called upon the State to provide free legal aid to ensure that no citizen was denied justice owing to economic or other disabilities. He said India was among the few nations to constitutionally mandate legal aid. 'Yet, the stark truth is that vast sections of our population — rural citizens, the urban poor, women, children, persons with disabilities, the elderly — still encounter formidable barriers in accessing justice. These may be barriers of awareness, geography, language, money, physical mobility, or social stigma,' Justice Kant noted.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
SC says anticipatory bail cannot be tied to resuming conjugal life, sets aside Jharkhand HC order
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Jharkhand High Court which granted anticipatory bail to a man, allegedly accused of cruelty and attempt to murder of his wife, on the condition that he would resume conjugal life with her and maintain her with dignity and honour. A two-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, held that conditioning the grant of pre-arrest bail on the accused resuming conjugal life with his wife is improper and not permissible under the law. The court quashed the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court. 'The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time. Imposing a condition that the appellant (accused husband) would maintain the respondent no.2 (wife) with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation. In such state of affairs, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have considered the prayer of the appellant for pre-arrest bail entirely on its own merit instead of imposing a condition,' the court observed in its order. According to the prosecution, the husband, Anil Kumar, was allegedly an accused in a case registered under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), 506 (criminal intimidation), 307 (attempt to murder), 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
