LexRAM SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 5 S.C.R. 670 RAM SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA (Writ Petition (civil) No. 274 of 2014) MARCH 17, 2015 [RANJAN GOGOi AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] c Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 16( 4) - Inclusion of 'Jal Community' in the Central List of Other Backward Classes for 9 States - By Notification dated 04.03.2014 by Central Government - Bypassing the contrary view taken by Na- tional Commission for Backward Classes - Propriety of - D Held: In view of the observations in Indra Sawhnev case and s. 9 of National Commission for Backward Classes Act, the advice of the Commission is ordinarily binding on the Government and the same can be overruled only on com- pelling reasons - The decision of the Commission not to E include the 'Jat Community' in the Central List was based on detailed consideration of various reports of the State Backward Classes Commissions and the findings of Expert Committee - The Government cannot be permitted to dis- card the statutory norms - The terms 'backward classes' and F 'socially and educationally backward classes' are not syn- onymous - Backward classes contemplated by Art. 16(4) is 'social backwardness' - Hence the crucial test for determin- ing entitlement of 'Jats' in Central List is social backward- ness - However, determining factors for inclusion of Jats in G the Central List by the Government was educational back- wardness - Government also decided the issue on the ba- sis of inputs which were not contemporaneous except the State of Haryana - Such a course adopted by the Govern- H 670 RAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 671 ment is retrograde governance - Therefore, the Notification A passed on the basis of view of the Government which was contrary to the advice of the Commission which was ad- equately supported by good and acceptable reasons, is not justified - National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 - ss. 9 and 11 - National Commission for Backward B Classes (Power to Review Advice) Rules, 2011 - r. 4- No- tification No. 63 dated 4.3.2014. Allowing the writ petitions, the Court c HELD: 1. The observations in *Indra Sawhney case and the expressed provisions contained in Section 9 of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act clearly indicate that the advice tendered by the National Commission for Backward Classes is ordinarily binding o on the Government and the same can be overruled/ ignored only for strong and compelling reasons which reasons would be expected to be available in writing. As the constitution of the Commission is traceable to the opinion rendered in *Indra Sawhney case, there can E be no doubt that even when the exercise undertaken by the Central Government is one under Section 11 of the Act, the views expressed by the NCBC in the process of the consultation mandated by Section 11 of the Act, would have a binding effect in the normal course. [Para F 26] [692-G-H; 693-A-B] *Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454: 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board 1966 Supp SCR G 311; Rohtas Industries Ltd. Vs. S.D. Agarwal & Ors. 1969 (3) SCR 108: (1969) 1 SCC 325; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1990 (1) SCR 909: (1990) 3 SCC 223; Gazi Saduddin Vs. State of Maharashtra H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 5 S.C.R. A & Anr. 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 966: (2003) 7 sec 330 - referred to. 2. The report dated 26.02.2014 of the Commission was made on a detailed consideration of the various B reports of the State Backward Classes Commissions; other available literature on the subject and also upon consideration of the findings of the Expert Committee constituted by the ICSSR to examine the matter. The decision not to recommend the Jats for inclusion in the C Central List of OBCs of the States in question cannot be said to be based on no materials or unsupported by reasons or characterized as decisions arrived at on consideration of matters that are, in any way, D extraneous and irrelevant. [Para 46) [713-E-F] 3. Having requested the ICSSR to go into the matter and upon receipt of the report of the Expert Committee constituted in this regard, the Commission was under a duty and obligation to consider the same and arrive E at its own independent decision in the matter, a duty cast upon it by the Act in question. Consideration of the report of the Expert Body and disagreement with the views expressed by the sai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.