ORDER

IA No. 31

1. This application was for extension of time for implementation of the directions by four weeks. The application was filed on 18-3-1993. More than sufficient time has elapsed since then. Therefore, this application does not survive and is dismissed.

IAs Nos. 35 and 36

2. The judgment of this Court was delivered way back on 16-11-1992 {Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217}. More than two years have since elapsed. The direction of this Court has not been carried out as yet, even though we had directed by the order of 20-3-1995 issuance of notice to show cause why action in contempt for non-compliance with this Courts order should not be taken and made the notice returnable within four weeks. Thereafter, the State Government had more than three months time to comply with the order. Instead of doing so what it seems to have now done is to decide to appoint a Committee headed by a retired Judge of this Court.

3. The Chief Secretary of the State is present in person in response to the contempt notice issued earlier. On further probing it transpires that only the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 8-7-1995 is recorded but as yet no administrative orders appointing the Committee have been issued. Obviously, this is to get over the difficulty likely to be faced at the hearing of the contempt notice today.

4. An affidavit is handed over just now to explain the circumstances why the implementation of the judgment was delayed. Even according to this affidavit the Government of India took a decision way back on 8-9-1993 fixing the criteria for exclusion of socially advanced persons etc. Even thereafter more than 1 1/2 years have elapsed. It appears that the file moved from desk to desk and the implementation of this Courts order was delayed. We are far from happy about the manner in which the process of implementation of this Courts order has been dealt with by the State Government. We are also unhappy that despite the issuance of the contempt notice the State Government did not realise the urgency of implementing the order. Various State Governments have already done so and we fail to see why the State of Kerala has not been able to do so. In the circumstances we are constrained to observe that the impression caused is that the appointment of the Committee is yet another step in the direction of further delay in the implementation of the order. In the absence of the order appointing the Committee the terms of appointment and the duration thereof is also not known.

5. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a case for taking action in contempt. We hold the respondent guilty of contempt. However, in order to give the respondent an opportunity to purge the contempt before we pass the sentence, we adjourn the matter by two months to enable the State Government to report compliance before 11-9-1995, failing which this Court will proceed to pass appropriate orders in respect of the contempt. The Chief Secretary will remain present at the next date of hearing i.e. on 11-9-1995 to inform this Court whether or not the order has been complied with. If not, he runs the risk of being sentenced. Let the IAs Nos. 35 and 36 come up on 11-9-1995.

IA No. 37

6. The State of Jammu and Kashmir has filed an affidavit explaining the various steps taken in the direction of implementing the Courts order dated 16-11-1992. A detailed affidavit indicating the action taken from time to time is filed. Although the action has not been taken within the time stipulated under the Courts order we see that there was a genuine effort in the direction of implementing the Courts order which has culminated in the passing of a statute known as J & K Backward Classes Commission Act, 1995, which has since received the assent of the President on 24-5-1995. The petitioner who has moved this interlocutory application is satisfied about the action taken by the State Government. Therefore, nothing further remains to be done so far as this ap