Suvendu govt ends religion-based schemes in Bengal, scraps state OBC list

The West Bengal state government has decided to discontinue all welfare schemes introduced by the previous administration that were based on religious catego...

What Happened

The West Bengal state government has decided to discontinue all welfare schemes introduced by the previous administration that were based on religious categorisation of beneficiaries, with the policy shift taking effect from June 2026.
The state cabinet also withdrew the state's petition before the Supreme Court that had challenged the Calcutta High Court's 2024 judgment striking down West Bengal's state OBC list.
The Calcutta High Court had invalidated the inclusion of 77 communities (of which 75 were Muslim communities) in the state's OBC list, ruling that "religion appears to have been the sole criterion" for granting OBC status — a basis the court termed a "fraud on the constitution" and unconstitutional religious appeasement.
The High Court's judgment had cancelled approximately five lakh OBC certificates issued since 2010 that were covered by the invalidated list.
The state cabinet additionally approved a universal (non-religion-based) monthly financial assistance scheme for women and announced free travel for women on state-run buses from June 1.

Static Topic Bridges

OBC Reservations — Constitutional Framework

The constitutional basis for reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is found in Articles 15(4), 16(4), and Article 340 of the Constitution.

Article 15(4): Permits the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Article 16(4): Permits the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens that is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
Article 340: Empowers the President to appoint a Commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes and the difficulties under which they labour. It was under Article 340 that the First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar Commission, 1953) and the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission, 1979) were constituted.
The 77th Constitutional Amendment (1995) inserted Article 16(4A) permitting reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees — reversing one aspect of the Indra Sawhney ruling.

Connection to this news: The Calcutta High Court's ruling rested directly on Article 15(4) and 16(4) — holding that "socially and educationally backward classes" must be identified on socio-economic grounds, and that religion alone cannot constitute the basis for determining backwardness.

Mandal Commission and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

The Second Backward Classes Commission, chaired by B.P. Mandal, was constituted in 1979 under Article 340 and submitted its report in 1980. It recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in central government services and educational institutions. The Union Government's 1990 decision to implement the Mandal Commission recommendations was challenged before the Supreme Court.

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court decided Indra Sawhney v. Union of India on November 16, 1992, and upheld the 27% OBC reservation.
Key ratio decidendi of Indra Sawhney:
Caste can be used as an indicator of social backwardness, but religion cannot be the sole criterion.
The "creamy layer" — the more affluent and educationally advanced members of OBC communities — must be excluded from reservation benefits.
Total reservations (SC + ST + OBC) cannot exceed 50% except in extraordinary circumstances.
Reservation in promotions (as opposed to initial appointments) is not permissible under Article 16(4).
A "backward class" must be identified by reference to social and educational backwardness — not by reference to religion, place of birth, or residence alone.
The 50% cap on total reservations has been challenged in the context of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (EWS quota, 2019) and is currently under judicial review.

Connection to this news: Indra Sawhney's fifth ratio — that religion cannot be the sole determinant of OBC backwardness — is the precise constitutional ground on which the Calcutta High Court invalidated West Bengal's OBC list, making this case a direct application of the 1992 ruling.

State vs Central OBC Lists — Dual Structure

India operates a dual OBC reservation structure: a Central OBC List (administered by the National Commission for Backward Classes under the NCBC Act, 1993, and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment) and separate State OBC Lists maintained by each state government.

State governments have the authority to identify and notify OBCs for reservations in state government jobs and state-funded educational institutions.
Central OBC list applies to central government jobs and centrally funded educational institutions (including those under the NTA, UGC, etc.).
The 102nd Constitutional Amendment (2018) inserted Articles 338B (National Commission for Backward Classes) and 342A (empowering the President to specify the Central OBC List), and the 105th Amendment (2021) restored states' power to maintain their own OBC lists after a controversy about whether the 102nd Amendment had transferred that power exclusively to Parliament.
Since the 105th Amendment, state legislatures have the explicit authority to maintain and amend their own OBC lists for state-level reservations.

Connection to this news: West Bengal's OBC list is a state-level list under the 105th Amendment framework. The Calcutta High Court's invalidation and the new government's decision to withdraw the Supreme Court appeal means the invalidated list will not be restored, and a new, legally compliant list will need to be prepared.

Religion-Based Reservations — Constitutional Validity

A central question in Indian reservation jurisprudence is whether religion can ever be a permissible basis for affirmative action. Article 15(1) prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion. Article 15(4) permits special provisions for backward classes but does not mention religion.

The Supreme Court has consistently held (building on Indra Sawhney) that identification of a group as a "backward class" must rest on social and educational indicators — not religious identity — even if the group in question belongs predominantly to a religious minority.
However, religious minorities who are socially and educationally backward can legitimately be included in OBC lists if the criteria applied are socio-economic, not religious.
Several High Courts (including the Allahabad High Court and the Calcutta High Court) have struck down OBC lists or components thereof where the inclusion appeared to be based primarily on religion.
The Sachar Committee Report (2006) documented the social and economic backwardness of segments of the Muslim community — providing a data basis for OBC inclusion on socio-economic grounds — but this does not validate religion-based (rather than socio-economic-based) criteria for OBC classification.

Connection to this news: The Calcutta High Court's 2024 ruling applied this line of authority to invalidate West Bengal's list. The new state government's decision to withdraw the challenge accepts the High Court's constitutional reasoning and signals a commitment to rebuild the OBC list on socio-economic criteria.

Key Facts & Data

Calcutta High Court (2024): Struck down West Bengal's OBC list on the ground that religion was the sole criterion for inclusion — called it a "fraud on the constitution."
77 communities were invalidated; 75 of these were Muslim communities.
Approximately 5 lakh OBC certificates issued since 2010 were cancelled by the High Court's order.
Article 340: President's power to constitute a Backward Classes Commission — the basis of the Mandal Commission (1979).
Article 15(4) and 16(4): Constitutional basis for OBC reservations.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), 9-judge bench: Upheld 27% OBC reservation; introduced creamy layer exclusion; capped total reservations at 50%; held religion cannot be the sole criterion for OBC identification.
102nd Constitutional Amendment (2018): Articles 338B and 342A — National Commission for Backward Classes; Central OBC list.
105th Constitutional Amendment (2021): Restored state legislatures' explicit power to maintain state OBC lists.
New government also approved a universal women's financial assistance scheme (₹3,000/month) and free travel for women on state buses from June 1, 2026.