'Surprising, Erroneous': Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Order Which Stayed New OBC List in West Bengal

'Surprising, Erroneous': Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Order Which Stayed New OBC List in West Bengal. The Supreme Court of India on Monday stayed the Calcutta High Court’s June 17 order that had put a hold on the West Bengal government's notification regarding the new list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The apex court expressed surprise over the High Court’s reasoning and questioned its understanding of established legal principles on executive powers concerning reservations.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice NV Anjaria passed the interim order while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of West Bengal.

“This is surprising! How can the High Court stay like this? Reservation is part of the executive functions. This is settled law since the Indira Sawhney judgment. Administrative orders alone can grant reservations; passing a law is not required. We are surprised by the High Court’s reasoning,” remarked CJI Gavai during the hearing.

Background and Legal Dispute

The matter stems from the Calcutta High Court's judgment in May 2024, in which it quashed the inclusion of 77 communities from the OBC list under the 2012 legislation. The State subsequently stated before the Supreme Court that the West Bengal Backward Classes Commission would carry out a fresh survey to re-identify backward classes. A new list was then issued, based on the Commission’s report.

However, the High Court again intervened, staying the new list and observing that the State ought to have placed the reports and bills before the Legislature for amendment to the 2012 Act.

Challenging the High Court’s stay, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, argued that the executive had followed proper procedure, with a fresh survey conducted by the State Backward Classes Commission. Sibal also highlighted the administrative consequences, saying that several appointments and promotions had been stalled and even contempt petitions had been filed before the High Court.

Opposing Views

Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar and Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the respondents, opposed the interim relief, claiming that as per the 2012 legislation, legislative approval was mandatory for adding communities to the OBC list. They also raised concerns over the lack of supporting data, asserting that the identification process lacked transparency.

Sibal countered by clarifying that the list was based on an independent exercise conducted by the Commission, and even the High Court did not question the survey’s validity.

SC Offers Middle Path, Issues Stay

The Supreme Court suggested a potential compromise — asking the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice to assign the matter to a different bench with a fixed timeline for final adjudication. The Court also proposed to maintain status quo in the interim. However, the respondents preferred to argue the matter directly before the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the High Court’s stay to be prima facie erroneous and ordered a stay on the impugned judgment.

“The Commission has followed some methodology. Whether it is correct or not will be finally decided by the High Court,” the CJI said.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s stay paves the way for the West Bengal government to move forward with the implementation of its new OBC list, at least temporarily. It also sets the stage for a deeper constitutional debate on the scope of executive powers in deciding reservation policies, especially when previous inclusions have been judicially invalidated.

The case is now poised for a final hearing, and all eyes will be on how the judiciary balances executive discretion with legislative processes in such sensitive socio-political matters.

Case details: [THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs PURABI DAS | SLP(C) No. 17422/2025 and connected cases]