1. Non-compliance by a state government with judicial directions to identify and exclude the creamy layer from backward class reservations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 892
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi and K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Interlocutory Appln. Nos. 35 and 36 in Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 930 of 1996
Decided On: 04. 11.1996
Indira Sawhney Appellants
Vs.
Union of India Respondent
Counsel for the Parties
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate, (AC.), (Ms. Indra Sawhney, Advocate in Person), K.K. Venugopal, S. Sukumaran, P.S. Poti, Sr. Advocates, K.V. Mohan, S.R. Setia, Ms. Baby Krishnan, M.T. George, T.c. Sharma, Wasim A. Qadri Advocates for Ms. Sushma Suri and Ms. A. Subhashini and E.M.S. Anam. Advs.
Important Points
The Court has the power to punish for contempt where a State Government fails to comply with its directions.
Subject
Contempt of Court - NON-COMPLIANCE OF COURT ORDER
Act Referred
Headnote
CONTEMPT OF COURT - NON-COMPLIANCE OF COURT ORDER - MANDAI CASE - IDENTIFICATION OF CREAMY LAYER - APPOINTMENT OF HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE - KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES (RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENTS OR POSTS IN THE SERVICES UNDER THE STATE) ACT, 1995 (KERALA ACT 16 OF 1995) - CONSTITUTIONALITY PENDING - REPORT WITHIN 3 MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Kerala failed to comply with the Supreme Court's directions in the Mandai case to identify and exclude the creamy layer from the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for the purpose of reservations. Despite several extensions of time granted by the Court, the State Government did not take any concrete steps to implement the order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the State of Kerala had not taken the directions of the Court seriously and had shown a lack of urgency in implementing the order. The Court also observed that the appointment of a Committee by the State Government was yet another step in the direction of further delay in the implementation of the order.
Issues: 1. Whether the State of Kerala was in contempt of court for failing to comply with the Supreme Court's directions in the Mandai case? 2. Whether the Kerala State Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1995 (Kerala Act 16 of 1995) was constitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State of Kerala was in contempt of court for failing to comply with its directions in the Mandai case. The Court observed that the State Government had not taken the directions of the Court seriously and had shown a lack of urgency in implementing the order. The Court also held that the appointment of a Committee by the State Government was yet another step in the direction of further delay in the implementation of the order.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to appoint a retired Judge of the High Court to be the Chairman of a High Level Committee to identify the creamy layer among the designated OBCs in Kerala State in the light of the ruling of this Court in Mandai case and forward the report to this Court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State government sought extensions and contended that the enactment of a state law on backward class reservations warranted the review of contempt proceedings. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. The court noted persistent inaction, bureaucratic delays, and failure to implement judicial directions despite multiple opportunities and the issuance of contempt notices. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
4. Persistent failure to implement judicial directions regarding the exclusion of the creamy layer justifies the appointment of an independent committee to ensure compliance. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appointment of a High Level Committee, chaired by a retired High Court Judge, to identify the creamy layer among designated backward classes. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. What is the requirement for backward class reservations regarding the creamy layer?
Socially advanced persons or sections, known as the creamy layer, must be excluded from the benefits of reservations provided to other backward classes based on relevant socio-economic criteria. (Para 1 )
7. How does the court treat persistent failure by a state to implement judicial directions?
The court views such inaction and bureaucratic delays as a failure to take judicial directions seriously, which may lead to contempt proceedings or direct court intervention to ensure implementation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
8. What measure may the court take to ensure the identification of the creamy layer when a state fails to do so?
The court may appoint an independent High Level Committee, chaired by a retired High Court Judge, to identify the creamy layer and submit a report to the court. (Para 5 , 6 )
ORDER
1. In what is known as Mandai case JT 1992 (6) SC 673, 1992 Supp(3) SCC 210 which was delivered on 16-11-1992 certain directions were given to the Union of India, State Government and also the Administration of Union Territories. Direction (B) reads as
follows:
(B) Within four months from today the Government of India shall specify the bases applying the relevant and requisite socio-economic criteria to exclude socially advanced persons/sections (creamy layer) from other backward classes. The implementation of the impugned O.M. dated August 13, 1990, shall be subject to exclusion of such socially advanced persons (creamy layer).
This direction shall not however apply to States where the reservations in favour of backward classes are already in operation. They can continue to operate them. Such States shall however evolve the said criteria within six months from today and apply the same to exclude the socially advanced persons/sections from the designated Other Backward Classes"
2. The Union of India as well as most of the States and Union Territories have complied with the abovesaid directions of this Court, Some States including the State of Kerala came up before this Court with petitions for extension of time to comply with the directions. The Slate of Kerala filed initially such an application on 6-8-1993 seeking an extension of 6 months time and modifying it to one year. This Court by an order dated 6-2-1995 observed the directions of this Court has not been carried out as yet. The learned counsel for the State of Kerala states that in the Slate of Kerala there is a statute whereunder the State Commission for Backward Classes is appointed. Be that as it may, the existence of the Act or the appointment of a State Commission under the State Act cannot stand in the way implementation of this Courts direction and even if there was any doubt in that behalf the period of over two years is more than sufficient, to say the least. The impression which this inaction gives out is that the State of Kerala has not taken the directions of this Court seriously. Before we take any drastic action for the non-implementation of this Courts direction we would like to wait for one month to enable the Stale of Kerala to implement this Courts direction. If that is not done, the State of Kerala will be compelling this Court to take drastic action in that matter.
3. Thereafter the matter again came up before the Court on 20-3-1995, finding that the State of Kerala has not taken any steps, this Court issued notice to show cause why action should not be taken for non-compliance of this Courts order. Again the matter came up on 10-7-1995. Even on that date no report of compliance was submitted to the Court; instead an affidavit sworn to by the Chief Secretary to the State was handed over explaining the circumstances why the implementation of the judgment was delayed. After going through the Report this Court observed as under:
"Even according to this affidavit the Government of India took a decision way back on 8th September, 1993 fixing the criteria for exclusion of socially advanced persons etc. Even thereafter more than 12 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 del ay in the implementation of the order. In the absence of the order appointing the Committee the terms of appointment and the dur
