- (1.) In what is known as Mandal case 1992 Supp (3) SCC 210 (217) : (1992 AIR SCW 3682) 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 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" (Emphasis supplied)
(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 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 directions 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 of 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 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 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 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 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 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 1 1/2 year have elapsed. It appears 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.";