During the proceedings, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, argued that the reservations were anchored in socio-economic criteria rather than religious identity. He underscored that these measures were intended to rectify historical injustices and improve access to opportunities for marginalized groups. Sibal contended that conflating socio-economic status with religious affiliation misinterprets the constitutional framework governing affirmative action.
The Calcutta High Court, however, previously ruled that the inclusion of certain communities as OBCs appeared to disproportionately benefit specific religious groups, undermining the constitutional mandate of secularism. The court's decision led to the exclusion of these communities from the state's OBC list, sparking widespread political and social reactions. Critics argued that the judgment disregarded the socio-economic hardships faced by these groups.
The Supreme Court's hearing delved into the broader implications of reservation policies, touching on constitutional provisions for affirmative action under Articles 15 and 16. The bench highlighted that while quotas are permissible to promote equality, they must adhere strictly to secular principles. It reiterated that any deviation could erode public trust and exacerbate communal tensions.
The legal dispute has also raised questions about the methodology employed in identifying OBCs. Concerns over transparency, accountability, and the use of empirical data to assess backwardness have surfaced. Activists and policymakers have called for a standardized and scientific approach to ensure that reservations benefit the genuinely disadvantaged, irrespective of their religious backgrounds.
This case has rekindled debates on the intersection of politics, religion, and social justice in India. While some view reservations as a vital tool for uplifting historically oppressed communities, others argue that their implementation often succumbs to political expediency. The controversy underscores the need for a nuanced and evidence-based discourse on the future of affirmative action.
Political ramifications have been significant, particularly in West Bengal, where the issue has sparked a charged dialogue between the ruling Trinamool Congress and opposition parties. The state's Chief Minister defended the reservation policy as an essential step toward inclusivity, while critics accused the government of exploiting identity politics for electoral gains. The Bharatiya Janata Party has taken a strong stance against religion-based reservations, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation of constitutional principles.