1. Metadata
Case Name: Amal Chandra Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Court: High Court of Calcutta
Citation: WPA (P) 111 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty
Petitioner: Amal Chandra Das
Respondent: The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 22 May 2025
2. Introduction
This case arose before the Calcutta High Court as part of a batch of Public Interest Litigations challenging the State of West Bengal’s executive notifications that purported to include 77 classes in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) list in the State. The court had earlier, by its judgment dated 22 May 2024, categorically held that any inclusion of classes in the OBC list, or any amendment to the reservation percentages applicable to such classes, requires a legislative enactment and cannot be effectuated by executive orders alone. That judgment was challenged by the State of West Bengal before the Supreme Court of India by way of a Special Leave Petition; however, the State did not obtain any stay of the High Court’s earlier judgment.
Notwithstanding the subsisting judgment, the State subsequently issued fresh executive notifications purporting to include the same 77 classes in the OBC list and to restore the reservation percentages. The petitioners approached the High Court, contending that these notifications were issued in direct and deliberate violation of the court’s prior judgment. The High Court was required to determine whether the State’s conduct in issuing these notifications was lawful, and whether interim relief by way of a stay of the notifications was warranted.
3. Summary of Facts
A batch of Public Interest Litigations had been filed before the Calcutta High Court challenging the identification and classification of 77 classes as Other Backward Classes in the State of West Bengal. The High Court, by its judgment of 22 May 2024, addressed the issue and held that any inclusion of classes in the OBC list or amendment to the applicable reservation percentages necessitated proper legislative action, and could not be accomplished through executive orders or notifications issued by the State government.
The State of West Bengal challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court of India through a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court did not grant any stay of the High Court’s judgment dated 22 May 2024. Despite the absence of a stay, the State proceeded to issue executive notifications including the same 77 classes in the OBC list and restoring the earlier reservation percentages. The petitioners thereafter filed the present proceedings before the High Court, contending that the impugned notifications were issued in “undue haste” and constituted a direct and wilful circumvention of the court’s binding judgment.
The court noted that the State appeared to be attempting, through executive fiat, to reintroduce the very classes and reservation percentages that had been invalidated by the judgment of 22 May 2024, without taking recourse to the legislative process that the court had specifically prescribed as the only permissible route for such inclusions. The petitioners sought an interim stay of the notifications and all consequential actions taken on the basis thereof.
4. Issues Before the Court
Issue 1: Whether the executive notifications issued by the State of West Bengal including 77 classes in the OBC list constituted a violation of the Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated 22 May 2024, which required legislative action under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India for any such inclusions.
Issue 2: Whether the issuance of the impugned notifications amounted to undue haste and an impermissible circumvention of the legislative process through executive fiat.
Issue 3: Whether amendments to the OBC list, including inclusions or modifications to reservation percentages, could be effected by the executive branch in the absence of a statutory enactment by the legislature.
Issue 4: Whether consequential actions taken pursuant to the impugned notifications warranted an interim stay pending compliance with the prior judicial directions of the High Court.
5. Arguments by Both Parties
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioners argued that the State’s issuance of executive notifications was a patent and deliberate violation of the High Court’s binding judgment of 22 May 2024. They submitted that the court had expressly directed that the OBC list could only be amended through a legislative enactment, and the State had circumvented this requirement by resorting to executive orders. The petitioners contended that the State had acted in “undue haste,” particularly given that its challenge to the earlier judgment was pending before the Supreme Court without any order of stay. They urged the court to stay the operation of all impugned notifications and the consequential actions taken pursuant to them, so as to prevent further erosion of the rule of law.
Arguments of the Respondent:
The State of West Bengal defended the issuance of the notifications, asserting its authority to take administrative steps for the welfare of backward classes and arguing that the notifications were issued in exercise of legitimate executive powers. The State submitted that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court and that appropriate steps had been taken in that regard. It was also contended that the inclusion of backward classes in the OBC list served an important social purpose, and that no immediate irreparable harm would result from the notifications remaining in operation pending the adjudication of the Special Leave Petition.
6. Reasonings and Findings
The Calcutta High Court found the State’s conduct to be in direct and blatant violation of its judgment of 22 May 2024. The court observed that the State, instead of placing the matter before the legislature for appropriate enactment, had chosen to reintroduce the same classes and the same reservation percentages through executive orders, in complete disregard of the specific direction that legislative action was the only permissible path.
The court characterised the issuance of the notifications as being made in “undue haste,” particularly in circumstances where the State’s challenge to the prior judgment was pending before the Supreme Court without any stay. The court reiterated the fundamental constitutional principle that changes to the OBC list, which engage the right of equality enshrined in Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, must be the product of a statutory exercise and cannot be achieved by executive action alone. The executive branch cannot usurp the role of the legislature in determining the composition of protected backward class lists.
The court further observed that the State appeared to be deliberately employing executive notifications to achieve by the back door what it had been prevented from doing by the front. This approach, the court noted, undermined the authority of judicial pronouncements and the separation of powers. The pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, without any stay of the High Court’s earlier order, did not furnish any justification for the State to proceed as though the judgment did not bind it.
In light of these findings, the court held that the impugned notifications and all consequential actions taken on their basis were liable to be stayed. The stay was directed to operate until the end of July 2025, or until further orders of the court, whichever was earlier, to enable the parties to address the matter before the competent legislative forum and the Supreme Court.
7. Judgment and Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court allowed the interim application and stayed the operation of all impugned executive notifications purporting to include the 77 classes in the OBC list and the consequential actions taken pursuant to them. The court directed the stay to operate until the end of July 2025 or further orders. The court reiterated that the inclusion of any class in the OBC list in the State of West Bengal requires proper legislative action, and that the State was obligated to place the relevant reports and bills before the legislature for statutory enactment. The decision reinforces the primacy of legislative process in matters of reservation policy and the binding force of court judgments over subsequent executive action.
8. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Why cannot the State include classes in the OBC list through executive notifications?
The Calcutta High Court held, in its judgment of 22 May 2024 and reiterated in this case, that any inclusion of a class in the OBC list or modification of reservation percentages engages the constitutional framework under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and requires a legislative enactment. Executive notifications do not possess the sanctity of a statute and cannot substitute for the democratic legislative process.
Q2. What is the significance of the absence of a stay from the Supreme Court?
When the State filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgment of 22 May 2024, it did not obtain any stay of that judgment. In the absence of a stay, the High Court’s judgment continued to bind all parties. The State’s subsequent issuance of executive notifications in disregard of that binding judgment was therefore held to be in direct violation of the court’s order.
Q3. What does “undue haste” mean in this context?
The court used the phrase to describe the State’s decision to issue fresh notifications restoring the same OBC inclusions that had been struck down, within a very short period of the High Court’s adverse judgment and while the matter was still pending before the Supreme Court. The haste indicated that the State was not genuinely seeking legislative recourse but was attempting to circumvent the judicial direction through executive action.
Q4. What happens to actions already taken under the stayed notifications?
The court stayed not only the notifications themselves but also all consequential actions taken on the basis of those notifications. This means that any appointments, selections, or reservations effected pursuant to the impugned notifications are also held in abeyance pending further orders, thereby preventing the creation of vested interests that could complicate eventual compliance with the judicial direction.
Q5. What must the State do to lawfully include classes in the OBC list?
The court directed that the State must place the relevant reports and bills before the legislature for proper statutory enactment. The inclusion of backward classes in reservation lists is a matter of significant constitutional importance that must be backed by the authority of a statute passed by the legislature, not merely an executive order issued by the government.
