KOLKATA — The West Bengal government, now led by Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has formally withdrawn its appeal in the Supreme Court challenging a Calcutta High Court verdict that struck down the inclusion of 77 communities—including 75 Muslim groups—in the state’s Other Backward Classes (OBC) list. The decision, taken by the state cabinet on June 10, 2026, effectively terminates a legal battle initiated by the previous Trinamool Congress (TMC) government under Mamata Banerjee, which had sought to overturn the High Court’s ruling on procedural and equity grounds.
The withdrawal marks a decisive shift in the state’s approach to OBC reservations, raising critical questions about the legal status of the affected communities, the political motivations behind the move, and the broader implications for India’s affirmative action framework. While the Adhikari government has framed the decision as a step toward “legal and administrative prudence,” critics argue it could disproportionately impact marginalized Muslim communities that had benefited from the reservations, reigniting debates over the role of religion in India’s quota system.
—
What Happened
The legal saga began in May 2024, when the Calcutta High Court delivered a landmark verdict invalidating the inclusion of 77 communities—predominantly Muslim—in West Bengal’s OBC list. The court ruled that the state government had failed to provide “adequate empirical data” to justify their classification as backward classes and had not followed proper consultation procedures with the West Bengal Backward Classes Commission (WBBC). The judgment further noted that the inclusion of these communities appeared to be politically motivated, lacking the rigorous socio-economic assessment required under constitutional provisions.
In response, the TMC government, then under Mamata Banerjee, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court in July 2024, arguing that the High Court’s decision would deprive thousands of students and job seekers from these communities of access to reservations in education and public employment. The TMC framed the appeal as a defense of social justice, emphasizing that the affected groups had historically faced systemic marginalization and relied on OBC quotas for upward mobility.
However, following the BJP’s victory in the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections, the new government under Suvendu Adhikari conducted a review of pending legal cases inherited from the TMC administration. On June 10, 2026, the state cabinet decided to withdraw the Supreme Court appeal, citing the need to “streamline legal battles” and avoid prolonged litigation on contentious issues. A government spokesperson confirmed the decision but declined to provide further details on the rationale, stating only that the move was part of a broader effort to “align state policies with judicial directives.”
The withdrawal leaves the High Court’s verdict intact, meaning the 77 communities—including 75 Muslim groups such as the Momin Ansar, Khandait, and Siddi—are no longer eligible for OBC reservations unless the state takes fresh legislative or administrative action.
—
Why It Matters
The withdrawal of the appeal carries significant legal, political, and social ramifications for West Bengal and India’s broader reservation framework.
# 1. Legal Precedent and Judicial Scrutiny
The Calcutta High Court’s 2024 verdict had set a precedent by emphasizing the need for empirical data and procedural rigor in OBC classifications. By withdrawing the appeal, the Adhikari government has effectively accepted the court’s interpretation, which could influence how other states approach OBC list revisions. Legal experts suggest that the decision may embolden courts to scrutinize reservation policies more closely, particularly in cases where classifications appear to lack robust socio-economic justification.
# 2. Impact on Marginalized Communities
The 77 communities affected by the High Court’s ruling include some of West Bengal’s most economically vulnerable groups, many of whom had gained access to educational and employment opportunities through OBC quotas. The withdrawal of the appeal leaves these communities in a state of limbo, as the state’s legislative efforts to reinstate their OBC status—through two bills passed in 2025—have not yet received presidential assent. Until such approval is granted, these groups remain ineligible for reservations, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities.
# 3. Political Fallout and Communal Tensions
The decision has already sparked political backlash, with the TMC accusing the BJP government of abandoning marginalized communities for electoral gain. TMC leader Mamata Banerjee, in a press conference on June 12, 2026, described the withdrawal as a “betrayal of the poor and the minorities,” framing it as part of a broader BJP agenda to undermine affirmative action policies. The BJP, in turn, has defended the move as a necessary correction to what it calls the TMC’s “vote-bank politics,” arguing that OBC reservations should be based on objective criteria rather than religious considerations.
The controversy has also reignited debates over the role of religion in India’s reservation system. While the Constitution prohibits reservations based solely on religion, courts have historically allowed the inclusion of religious minorities under the OBC category if they meet socio-economic backwardness criteria. The withdrawal of the appeal has been interpreted by some as a signal that the BJP government is reluctant to extend reservations to Muslim communities, aligning with the party’s broader ideological stance on secularism and affirmative action.
# 4. Legislative Uncertainty
The West Bengal Assembly passed two bills in 2025 aimed at restoring OBC status to some of the affected communities. The first bill sought to reclassify 65 of the 77 communities as OBCs, while the second proposed the creation of a new “Most Backward Classes” (MBC) category to accommodate the remaining 12. However, both bills require presidential assent under Article 342A of the Constitution, which mandates central government approval for changes to state OBC lists. As of June 2026, the bills remain pending before the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, leaving the legal status of the communities unresolved.
—
Background and Context
# The Evolution of OBC Reservations in West Bengal
West Bengal’s OBC reservation policy has undergone multiple revisions since its inception in the 1990s. The state initially implemented a 7% reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions, later increasing it to 17% in 2012 following the recommendations of the Ranganath Misra Commission, which had called for a sub-quota for religious minorities within the OBC category. The TMC government, which came to power in 2011, expanded the OBC list significantly, adding over 100 communities, including a large number of Muslim groups, between 2012 and 2023.
Critics of the TMC’s approach argued that the expansions were politically motivated, aimed at consolidating the party’s support among Muslim voters, who constitute nearly 30% of West Bengal’s population. The Calcutta High Court’s 2024 verdict echoed these concerns, noting that the inclusion of the 77 communities lacked “scientific and empirical backing” and appeared to have been done without proper consultation with the WBBC.
# Judicial Interventions in OBC Policies
The West Bengal case is part of a broader trend of judicial scrutiny of OBC reservations across India. In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down the Maratha reservation in Maharashtra, ruling that it exceeded the 50% cap on quotas set by the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992). Similarly, in 2021, the Supreme Court quashed the Haryana government’s decision to grant 75% reservation in private sector jobs to local candidates, citing violations of constitutional provisions.
The Calcutta High Court’s 2024 verdict aligns with this trend, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as a check on executive overreach in reservation policies. However, the withdrawal of the appeal by the Adhikari government raises questions about whether the state is now prioritizing judicial compliance over social equity, particularly for communities that have historically been excluded from mainstream opportunities.
# The Role of the Backward Classes Commission
The West Bengal Backward Classes Commission (WBBC), a statutory body tasked with identifying and recommending OBC communities, has been at the center of the controversy. The High Court’s 2024 verdict criticized the state government for bypassing the WBBC’s recommendations in the inclusion of the 77 communities, noting that the commission had not been consulted in a “meaningful manner.” The WBBC, in its 2023 report, had flagged several procedural irregularities in the TMC government’s OBC list expansions, including the lack of socio-economic surveys to justify the classifications.
The Adhikari government has since reconstituted the WBBC, appointing new members in 2025 with a mandate to conduct fresh surveys and reassess the OBC list. However, the commission’s work is expected to take at least two years, leaving the status of the 77 communities in limbo in the interim.
—
Competing Claims and Uncertainty
# 1. Government’s Stance: Legal Prudence or Political Calculation?
The Adhikari government has framed the withdrawal of the appeal as a pragmatic decision, arguing that pursuing a legally weak case would have been a waste of state resources. Government sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that the TMC’s appeal lacked merit, given the High Court’s detailed critique of the OBC list’s procedural flaws. “The previous government’s decision to challenge the verdict was more about politics than justice,” said a senior BJP leader. “We are committed to a transparent and evidence-based approach to reservations.”
However, the government’s reluctance to provide a detailed rationale has fueled speculation about its motives. Some analysts suggest that the withdrawal is part of a broader BJP strategy to distance itself from the TMC’s legacy, particularly on issues related to minority welfare. Others argue that the move is aimed at appeasing the BJP’s Hindu nationalist base, which has long opposed reservations for Muslim communities.
# 2. TMC’s Counter-Narrative: Betrayal of the Marginalized
The TMC has vehemently opposed the withdrawal, accusing the BJP of undermining social justice for electoral gain. Mamata Banerjee, in her June 12 press conference, alleged that the decision was driven by the BJP’s “communal agenda,” aimed at depriving Muslim communities of their rightful share in reservations. “The BJP is using the courts to dismantle the very idea of affirmative action,” she said. “This is not about legal prudence; it’s about politics.”
The TMC has also questioned the timing of the withdrawal, noting that the state’s legislative efforts to reinstate the OBC status of the 77 communities remain stalled at the central government level. “If the BJP was serious about social justice, it would have pushed for presidential assent on the bills we passed in 2025,” said a TMC spokesperson. “Instead, they are using legal technicalities to deny these communities their rights.”
# 3. Legal Ambiguity: What Happens Next?
The withdrawal of the appeal leaves several legal questions unanswered. While the High Court’s verdict remains in force, the state’s legislative efforts to reinstate the OBC status of the 77 communities are still pending. The two bills passed by the West Bengal Assembly in 2025—one reclassifying 65 communities as OBCs and another creating an MBC category for the remaining 12—have not yet received presidential assent. Under Article 342A of the Constitution, such assent is mandatory for any changes to state OBC lists, and the process can often take years, particularly if the central government raises objections.
Legal experts are divided on whether the state can take alternative administrative measures to protect the interests of the affected communities. Some suggest that the government could issue interim orders to safeguard the reservations of students and job applicants from these communities until the bills receive presidential approval. Others argue that such measures would be legally untenable,
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Times of India – Top Stories — source.
