LexINDIRA SAWHNEY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
INDIRA SA WHNEY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 4, 1996 [A.M. ADMADI, CJ., SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) Manda! case-Identification of creamy layer-Directions- Implementation of by the Union Government, State Governments and Union A B Territories-State of Kera/a asking for time but not coming forward with 41 any positive suggestions regarding steps taken by it-Hence a High Level• C Committee to identify the creamy layer among the designated other backward classes in Kera/a State-Committee to consist of a Chairman and 4 Members-Chief Justice of Kera/a High Court to appoint a retired Judge of the High Court as Chairman of the Committee-Directions-Issued. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application Nos. D 35 and 36. In Writ Petition (C) No. 930 Of 1990. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Soli J. Sorabjee, (A.C.) Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv. In Person, K.K. Venugopal, S. Sukumaran, P.S. Poti, K.V. Mohan, S.R. Setia, Ms. Baby Krishnan, M.T. George, (T.C. Sharma, Wasim A. Qadri) for Ms. Sushma Suri and Ms. A. Subhashini and E.M.S. Anam for the appearing parties. The following_ Order of the Court was delivered : In what is known as Manda! case [1992] (suppl) 3 SCC 217 which E F was delivered on 16.11.1992 certain directions were given to the Union of India. State Governments and also the Administration of Union Territories. G Direction (b) reads as follows: (B) Within four months from today the Government oflndia 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 H 369 370 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS[l996] SUPP.8 S.C.R. A implementation ofthe 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 B 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) C The Union oflndia as well as most of the States and Union Territories have complied with the abovesaid directions of this Court. Some States including the State ofKerala came up before this Court with petitiones 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 of6 months D time and modifying it to one year. This Court by an order dated 6.2. 1995 observed the direction of this Court has not been carried out as yet. 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 E implementation of this Court's direction and even ifthere 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 Court's direction we would like to wait for one month to enable the State ofKerala to implement F this Court's direction. If that is not done, the State of Kerala will be compelling this Court to take drastic action in the 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 G 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 the circumstances why the implementation of the judgment was delayed. After going through the Report, this Court observed H as under: INDIRA SA WHNEY v. U.0.1. 371 "Even according to this affidavit the Government of India A took a decision way back on 8th September, I 993 fixing the criteria for exclusion of socially advanced persons etc. Even thereafter more
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.