INDIRA SAWHNEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 :

(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 :