LexINDIRA SAWHNEY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
INDIRA SA WHNEY A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DECEMBER 13, 1999 [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, D.P. WADHWA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] B Constitution of India Articles 14, 16( 1) & 16( 4)-Reservation-Backward Classes- 'Creamy C layer '-Identification and exclusion of from the purview of reservation- Directions issued by Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney case-State of Kerala- Failure to identify 'creamy layer '-State Legislature passing a law for continuing the existing system of reservation by declaring non-existence of 'creamy layer' in Backward Classess and inadequate representation of Backward Classes in services under the State-Validity of-Held; 'creamy D layer' in a caste is not economically and socially backward-Conferring the benefit of reservation without excluding creamy layer will amount to treating unequals as equals and equals as unequals-Thus, violative of equality principle enshrined in Articles 14 and 16(1)-Declarations in the Act not in conformity with the judicial declaration of Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney 's case and Ashok Kumar Thakur 's case-Thus, provision of the Act E unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16-Kerala State Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments or Posts in the Service under the State) Act, 1995-Ss. 3, 4 and 6. Articles 14, 16(4), 16(1) and 16(2)-Reservation-Backward Classes- F Identification-Caste-Criteria-Held, caste cannot be the only basis for reservation-Inclusion of castes in the list qf backward Classes cannot be done mechanically-'Creamy layer' in a caste is on par with forward classes and therefore has to be excluded from the benefit of reservation. Articles 14 and 16(1)-Principle of equality-Violation of- G Reservation-Backward Classes-Non-exclusion of 'creamy layer '-Effect of- Held, amounts to treating unequals as equals and equals as unequals-Thus, violative of principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16(1) which is the basic feature of Constitution-Executive or legislative action violating basic fea:ure is unconstitutional. 229 H 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Articles 14, 16, 32 and 226-Judicial review-Scope of Legislative declaration-State of Kera/a passing an Act declaring that in view of 'known facts' there is no 'creamy layer' in Backward Classes having capacity to compete with Forward Classes-Held, amenable to judicial review-Kera/a State backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments or Posts in the Service) B Act, /995-S.3(a)(b). Articles 14, 16(/), 16(2), 16(4) and 335-Reservation-Backward Classes-Need for maintenance of efficiency of administration-Specific provision regarding Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes-No provision regarding Backward Classes-Held, such principle deducible from Articles C 14 and 16-Maintenance of efficiency of administration applicable to Backward Classes also. Articles 14 and 16(/ )-Reservation-'-Backward Classses-Creamy layer-Exclusion of-Inadequate represeniation of Backward Classes in service under the State-Whether a valid ground for extending the benefit of D reservation? Held, No-Kera/a State Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, /995-S.3(b). Articles 14, 16(/) and 245-Validating enactment-Reservation- Backward Classes-Creamy layer-Exclusion of-Directions of Supreme Court. in Indira Sawhney case-Siate legislation enacting law with E retrospective validation without removing the defects-validity of-Held, amounts to overruling the judgment of Supreme Court~ontrary to doctrine of separation of powers-Violative of Articles 14 and 16(/)-Kerala State Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1995-S.6. F Articles 14, 16(/) and 16(4)-Kerala State Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, I995-Ss.3, 4 and 6-Constitutional validity of-Held, unconstitutional. In Indira Sawhney's case this Court issued directions to the Central G Government and State Governments to identify the 'creamy layer' within the Backward Classes and exclude them from the category of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. However, State of Kerala instead of implementing the said directions, passed the Kerala State Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments or Posts in the ~ervices under the State) Act, 1995 for continuing the existing system of reservation declaring that in view H of 'known facts
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.