
Bengal's OBC list: After HC rap, who goes out, who stays, and why BJP is objecting
On June 10, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee laid in the Assembly new OBC-A and OBC-B lists, adding 76 groups and taking the total number to 140. However, the BJP has alleged that these lists carry the same basis as what led the High Court last year to scrap all additions to OBCs since 2010 by the West Bengal government – that these are heavily skewed in favour of Muslims. Of the 140 communities in the OBC list now, 80 are Muslim.
The High Court had scrapped 113 names from the list of OBCs, retaining 66, last year. Of the scrapped 113, 76 have now been added back, while two from the list of 66 have been taken out. Applications of others, the state government has said, are pending. While the names of the groups added back have been specified, it is not the case with those left out.
The government has also said that the 76 new OBC groups added were shortlisted purely on the basis of recommendations of the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes. Of these 51 were added to OBC-A (covering the 'more backward' among OBCs) and 25 to OBC-B.
Between March 2010 and May 2012, 77 communities were issued OBC certificates by the state, 75 of them Muslim. Of these 75 Muslim groups, 42 got OBC status under the Left government in 2010.
The first challenge in the high court was filed in 2011 on the ground that the declaration of these 42 classes as OBCs was 'based purely on religion', that 'the categorisation is not based on any acceptable data, and that the survey conducted by the (backward classes) commission was unscientific, and prefabricated… to fit the head'.
In May 2012, by which time the TMC government had come to power, another 35 classes were categorised as OBC, 34 of them from the Muslim community. This too was challenged in the court.
In March 2013, the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Reservation of vacancies and posts) Act, 2012, was notified. All 77 (42+35) new OBCs were included in the Act. Two petitions were filed challenging the Act.
On May 22, 2024, the court struck down the inclusion of 113 groups in total, retaining only 66, saying 'religion indeed appears to have been the sole criterion' for granting the status. As with most cases where reservations have been challenged, the court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's Indra Sawhney v Union of India (Mandal judgment). The 1992 order had held that states must establish a backward classes commission to identify and recommend classes of citizens for inclusion or exclusion in the state OBC list.
The High Court said that in West Bengal's case, between 2010 and 2012, the backward classes commission's recommendations had been made with 'lightning speed'… without using any 'objective criteria' to determine the backwardness of these classes. 'Religion indeed appears to have been the sole criterion for declaring these communities as OBCs', and the reports that the commission submitted were meant only to 'curtain and hide such religion specific recommendations', the court said.
'This court's mind is not free from doubt that the said community has been treated as a commodity for political ends', and that the classes added were being treated as a 'vote bank', it said.
The court also struck down portions of the 2012 Act that allowed the state government to 'sub-classify' OBC reservations into OBC-A and OBC-B categories for 'more backward' and 'backward' classes respectively. Sub-classification is meant to address the different levels of deprivation, which the court held could only be done by referring to material collected by the commission.
The High Court order coincided with the Lok Sabha campaign, and the BJP accused the ruling Trinamool Congress of seeking to take away reservation and other benefits from Hindus and giving them to Muslims.
Following the court order, CM Banerjee said they would file an appeal challenging the same in the Supreme Court, adding: 'You (the BJP) are playing at A and I will play at B. If you play at C, I will play at Z.'
The TMC government contended that the backward classes commission identified the classes based on applications received from citizens.
In 2024, the TMC government moved the Supreme Court, along with some other petitioners. On March 18 this year, the government informed the Court that a fresh exercise was being conducted for the identification of OBCs in the state. The Court then agreed to adjourn the matter by three months and take it up in July.
On Tuesday, Banerjee laid an interim report of the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes in the Assembly. Noting that for inclusion in the OBC list, a class or citizen needs to apply 'in the prescribed proforma detailing the social, economic and educational features of that class', the report said that the commission had 'till date' recommended '179 classes for inclusion as 'Other Backward Classes' in the State list of OBCs'. Out of these, the panel said, 113 were struck down by the High Court in May 2024. 'Only 66 communities enlisted before 2010 were kept untouched.'
The report added that it had now recommended 'for inclusion of 51 plus 25 classes, total 76 classes'. Out of these 76 classes, the report said, 74 had been 'delisted' by the High Court order, while two 'applied afresh for inclusion'.
Sub-categorising these 76 classes, the commission said 35 fall in the OBC-A category and 41 in OBC-B.
The commission's report also sub-categorised 64 of 'the 66 classes of OBCs which were not delisted' by High Court. 'The Commission after due consideration of the scores received by such 64 classes in the Benchmark Survey, recommended sub-categorisation of 14 classes in Category A (More Backward) while 50 classes were recommended to be categorised in Category B (Backward). For the remaining 2 classes, the Commission decided to conduct a fresh survey.'
It added that it was still carrying out its benchmark survey as regards 41 communities. 'This process is expected to be completed within the next month or two.' In addition to this, says the report, '7 more communities have placed their applications before West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes for inclusion in the State OBC List…'.
Presenting the commission's report, the CM said: 'Some corners are trying to campaign that the state government is providing reservation on the basis of religion, which is baseless… We made the new OBC-A and OBC-B lists on the basis of a scientific benchmark survey conducted by the commission and included those communities which are backward. There is no question of making OBC categories on the basis of religion.'
A government notification the same day said that of the total number of OBC groups now, 80 are Muslim and 60 non-Muslim, with Muslims making up 57.14% of the total. Of the 49 in the most backward OBC-A category, 36 are Muslim; and of the 91 in OBC-B category, 44 are Muslims.
Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari has alleged that the new OBC list prepared by the TMC government also has religion as criterion, and provides 'one-sided benefit' exclusively to Muslims. He posted on X Wednesday: 'OBC = Other Backward Classes. In West Bengal it means One-Sided Beneficiary Classes.'
Countering Adhikari, the TMC said, 'We all know that 'Divide and Rule' is the official policy of the BJP, and your only agenda for the 2026 elections is to pit Hindus against Muslims.' It reiterated Banerjee's statement that backwardness, not religion, is the sole criterion for OBC status, and said: 'The new list was prepared with that principle in mind.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India.com
3 minutes ago
- India.com
Malegaon blast verdict: 17 years later, all seven accused, including BJP leader Pragya Thakur, acquitted
Malegaon blast verdict: 17 years later, all seven accused, including BJP leader Pragya Thakur, acquitted Malegaon blast verdict: Almost 17 years after a blast killed six persons and left more than 100 injured in Maharashtra's communally sensitive Malegaon town, a special NIA court on Thursday acquitted a By Nivedita Dash Edited by Nivedita Dash Advertisement Malegaon blast verdict: 17 years later, all seven accused including BJP leader Pragya Thakur acquitted Malegaon blast verdict: Almost 17 years after a blast killed six persons and left more than 100 injured in Maharashtra's communally sensitive Malegaon town, a special NIA court on Thursday acquitted all the accused including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. Seven accused, including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, were facing trial in the case for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code. Advertisement === Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni were the other accused in the case. What the court said? Advertisement === The court instructed that the families of all six victims of the blast will be given Rs 2 lakh each, and all injured victims will be given Rs 50,000 as compensation. The court said: UAPA will not be invoked in this case as sanction was not taken as per rules. Both the sanction orders of the UAPA in the case are defective. Abhinav Bharat organisation was used as a common reference by the prosecution. There is no evidence that the money of the Abhinav Bharat was used for terror activities. Prosecution proved that a blast occurred in Malegaon, but failed to prove that a bomb was placed in that motorcycle. The court has come to the conclusion that the injured people were not 101 but 95 only, and there was manipulation in some medical certificates. What was the case? Six persons were killed and more than 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in the town, located about 200 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008. In its final argument, the NIA submitted that the blast in Malegaon – a town with a sizable Muslim population – was orchestrated by the conspirators to terrorise a section of Muslim community, disrupt essential services, create communal tensions, and threaten the state's internal security. The NIA has said that based on 'relevant, admissible, cogent, trustworthy, wholly reliable and proved evidence' it 'conclusively and cogently' established the crucial circumstances to form a complete chain of events. The charges comprised UAPA sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) and various IPC sections, including 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 153 (a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups).


NDTV
3 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Anti-Terror Law UAPA Can't Be Invoked": What Court Said In Malegaon Verdict
New Delhi: All seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and former Army officer Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, have been acquitted by a special NIA court in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, in which six people died and may were injured. The Special NIA court said that the prosecution failed to prove the case; accused deserve benefit of doubt. They have been acquitted of all charges of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Arms Act and other charges. The blast took place on September 29, 2008, in Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra. The explosion occurred during the month of Ramzan and just before the festival of Navratri. Here are the 5 big things court said while delivering the verdict: Prosecution proved that a blast occurred in Malegaon, but failed to prove that a bomb was placed in that motorcycle. Injured count not 101, but 95. Even medical certificates were manipulated. Though RDX was brought and used is the allegation, there is no evidence of storage of RDX in Lt Colonel Purohit's house and no evidence to show he assembled it. The motorcycle chassis number was wiped out and the engine number is under doubt. There is no evidence to show Pragya Thakur is the owner and was in possession of the bike. No doubt terror has no religion, but conviction cannot happen based on the evidence presented. UAPA will not be invoked in this case as sanction was not taken as per rules. Both the sanction orders of the UAPA in the case are defective.


India Today
3 minutes ago
- India Today
Karnataka Minister pushes for special fund to support young OBC entrepreneurs
Karnataka Labour Minister Santosh Lad has written to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar urging the creation of a special 'fund-of-funds' to support young industrialists from Other Backward Classes (OBC) his letter dated July 26, Lad cited data from the 2015 Social and Educational Survey, which showed that OBCs make up 70% of Karnataka's population. He argued that the absence of a dedicated financial mechanism was discouraging young entrepreneurs from these communities from entering the industrial there is no separate fund to bolster young industrialists from these communities, they are staying away from the industry sector. Thus, it is mandatory to institute a separate fund at the government level,' the minister wrote. He called for immediate action, saying such a fund could bridge the gap in representation and opportunity in the state's industrial April this year, the state's caste census commission recommended increasing the OBC reservation quota in education and employment from 32 per cent to 51 per cent. If implemented, this would push total reservation in the state to 85 per cent, including 10 per cent for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and 24 per cent for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST).The commission also advised the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government to introduce horizontal reservation within existing quotas, for categories like women and persons with disabilities, across all vertical groups such as SC, ST, and OBC.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Karnataka