Issues associated with Calcutta High Court’s judgement on reservation policies in India

Source: The post Issues associated with Calcutta High Court’s judgement on reservation policies in India has been created, based on the article “Why the Calcutta High Court decision on OBC reservation for Muslims raises questions” published in “Indian express” on 28th May 2024.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2– Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.

Context: The article discusses how reservation policies in India, particularly for Muslim backward castes, face scrutiny despite constitutional provisions. It highlights judicial trends, political decisions, and the complexities surrounding inclusion in backward caste lists, focusing on a recent High Court judgment in West Bengal.

For detailed information on the Mandal case and Reservation in India read this article here

What is the Supreme court’s stance on reservation policies?

In Indira Sawhney (1992), the Supreme Court introduced the “creamy layer” exclusion.

M R Balaji (1963) set a 50% upper limit on reservations.

B N Tiwari (1964) struck down the “carry forward” rule.

Courts emphasize “efficiency” and often favor general candidates.

How did the Calcutta High court respond to Muslim reservations?

The Calcutta High Court struck down the inclusion of some Muslim backward castes in the reservation list.

The decision criticized the West Bengal State Backward Class Commission’s recommendations.

The court highlighted that inclusion was made by executive orders without consulting the BC Commission.

It noted the recommendations lacked an in-depth empirical survey.

The court found the “inadequacy of representation” in state services was not fully examined.

What are the issues with the Calcutta High court response to Muslim reservations, as per the author of the source article?

The court ignored the precedent set by Indira Sawhney, which allowed reservations by executive order.

It dismissed the Sachar Committee’s findings due to outdated data, while the Mandal Commission used even older data from the 1931 Census.

The High Court criticized a 5% population survey by the BC Commission, although the Mandal Commission surveyed only two villages and one block in 405 of 406 districts.

The court did not equally scrutinize non-Muslim castes’ inclusion.

It overlooked that many Muslim BC castes were already recognized by the Mandal Commission and central government.

The court failed to appreciate that some Muslim castes are SC converts, whose backwardness was recognized by the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh (2018).

Question for practice:

Discuss the implications of the Calcutta High Court’s response to Muslim reservations in India, particularly in terms of judicial fairness, potential biases, and its impact on the socio-economic upliftment of Muslim backward communities.