http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: INDIRA SAWHNEY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIAN AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/11/1996

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      In what  is known  as Mandal case (1992 ) (Suppl) 3 SCC 217) which  was delivered  on 16.11.1992  certain directions were given  to the  Union of  India.   State Governments 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      socioeconomic 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      reservation 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".  (Emphasis supplied)      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 pf Kerala  came up  before this  Court  with  petitions  for extension of  time to comply with the directions.  The State 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 direction  of this Court has not ben carried out as yet.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

The learned  counsel for  the State of Kerala states that in the State  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 Court’s  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 direction of this Court seriously.  Before we take  any drastic  action for  the non-implementation  of this Court’s  direction we  would like to wait for one month to enable  the State  of Kerala  to implement  this  Court’s direction, if  that is not done, the state of Kerala will be compelling this Court to take drastic action in this matter.      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  Court’s 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 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  therefore more      than  1 1/2 years have elapsed.  It      appeals that  the file  moved  from      desk to desk and the implementation      of this  Court’s order was delayed.      We are  far from  happy  about  the      manner  in  which  the  process  of      implementation  of   this   Court’s      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."      Again the  matter came  up on  11.9.1995.  On that date another affidavit from the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala  was filed  along with a copy of the Act passed by the Legislative  Assembly of  the State of Kerala called the Kerala State  Backward Classes  (Reservation of Appointments or Posts  in the Services Under the State) Act, 1995 (Kerala Act 16 of 1995).  On the basis of the said Act it was prayed in the  affidavit that  in view  of the  law passed  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Legislative Assembly,  the order already passed on 10.7.1995 may be  reviewed relating  to the  contempt of  court.  Even then no  definite stand  with regard  to  identification  of ’creamy layer’  in the  light of  the judgment of this Court directed to  file better and comprehensive affidavit stating how the  State delay  with the question of identification of ’creamy layer’.  As there  was no further fruitful action on the part of the State of Kerala, this Court was compelled to consider the  relevant scope,  ambit and extent of its power to punish for contempt where the State Government is alleged to have  failed to comply with the directions of this Court. For that  purpose, the  services of  a senior  counsel  were requisitioned to  assist the  Court.   In the meanwhile Writ Petition  Nos.   699  and   727  of   1995  challenging  the constitutionality of the Act passed by the State Legislature referred to  above came  to be  filed.   This Court by order dated 27.2.1996  directed those  two writ  petitions  to  be placed for  disposal along  with this  matter. On  5.8.1996, learned counsel  appearing on  behalf of the State of Kerala sought some  time  to  clarify  the  State  of  the  present Government as  by then there was a change in the Government. Though, the  learned counsel  prayed for  time till  October 1996, this  Court having regard to the time already granted, gave time  till 10.9.1996.  Shri P.S.Poti,  learned  counsel appearing for  the State of Kerala expect asking for further more  time,   could  not  come  forward  with  any  position suggestions  regarding   the  steps   taken  by   the  State Government to  identify the  ’creamy layer’  when the matter came up for hearing on 23.9.1996.      In the circumstances out of sheer exhaustion and having regard to  the fact that the constitutionality of the Kerala Act 16  of 1995  is pending  disposal before  this Court, we have decided  to get  the  information  ourselves  regarding ’creamy layer’ issue through a High Level Committee.      Accordingly, we  request the  learned Chief  Justice of the Kerala High Court to appoint a retired judge of the High Court to  be the  Chairman of  the High  Level Committee who will induct  not more  than 4  members from various walks of life to  identify the  ’creamy layer’  among the  designated other backward  classes in  Kerala State in the light of the ruling of  this Court  in Mandal case and forward the report to this Court within 3 months form the date of this order.      We direct  the  State  of  Kerala  to  extend  all  co- operation including  the  expenses  in  this  regard.    The learned Chief  Justice of the Kerala High Court will fix the terms of the Commission including the honorarium.  The State pf Kerala will meet with the financial obligation.      A Copy of the Office Memorandum issued by Government of India.  Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of  Personnel and  Training)  dated  a  8.9.1993 pursuant to  the directions  of this  Court in ’Mandal Case’ (available at  pages 37  to 43  of the  paper book  in  Writ Petition No.699/95)  may be  sent by the Office along with a Copy of  this Court’s  order for  use and  guidance  of  the members of  the High  Level  Committee  in  identifying  the ’creamy layer’  among other Backward Classes in the State of Kerala.  List the matter after the report is filed.