Supreme Court warns Kerala over failure to exclude 'creamy layer' from OBCs, considers contempt proceedings for non-compliance. The SC addressed Kerala's non-compliance with its directive to exclude the 'creamy layer' from OBCs, as outlined in the 1992 Mandal case. Despite multiple ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Supreme Court warns Kerala over failure to exclude 'creamy layer' from OBCs, considers contempt proceedings for non-compliance.
The SC addressed Kerala's non-compliance with its directive to exclude the 'creamy layer' from OBCs, as outlined in the 1992 Mandal case. Despite multiple extensions, Kerala failed to implement the directive, prompting the SC to consider contempt proceedings. In response to Kerala's 1995 Act, the SC established a High-Level Committee, chaired by a retired HC judge, to identify the 'creamy layer' within three months. The SC mandated full cooperation from Kerala, including financial support, and directed the Chief Justice of the Kerala HC to set the Committee's terms. Further proceedings were scheduled post-report submission.
Issues: Compliance with Supreme Court directions regarding exclusion of socially advanced persons from Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in Kerala State.
Analysis: The Supreme Court referred to the Mandal case of 1992, where directions were given to exclude socially advanced persons or the 'creamy layer' from OBCs. The Union of India and most states complied with these directions. However, the State of Kerala failed to implement the Court's order despite multiple extensions. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the delay and lack of seriousness shown by the State of Kerala in implementing the directions. The State's inaction led the Court to consider contempt proceedings.
The State of Kerala filed an Act in 1995, seeking a review of the contempt order based on the new legislation. However, the State failed to provide a clear plan for identifying the 'creamy layer' in compliance with the Court's judgment. With no progress from the State, the Court decided to explore its powers to punish for contempt due to non-compliance.
Given the pending challenge to the constitutionality of the Kerala Act 16 of 1995, the Court decided to establish a High-Level Committee to identify the 'creamy layer' among OBCs in Kerala. The Committee, chaired by a retired High Court judge, would consist of four members from various backgrounds. The Committee was tasked to submit a report within three months, with the State of Kerala required to provide full cooperation and cover the expenses.
The Court directed the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to set the terms of the Committee, including the honorarium, with the State responsible for the financial obligations. The Committee would use the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India in 1993 as a guideline for identifying the 'creamy layer.' The Court scheduled the matter for further proceedings after the Committee's report was submitted.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI OCR ✕
of 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
